There are those who will maintain that the schizo is incapable of uttering the word I, and that we must restore his ability to pronounce this hallowed word. All of which the schizo sums up by saying: they're fucking me over again.
_______________________
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
Anti-Oedipus (p.23)
Thursday, November 20, 2008
A historical and theoretical background on the panspectrocism thesis
This is an interesting thesis. Paranoid "big brother" rhetoric needs an update.
Transcript and website Here
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Beauvoir, Becoming, and (Dis)Embodiment: The Masculine Denial of Corporality
Simone’s de Beauvoir’s assertion that, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” is a foundational formulation from which postmodern feminist theory has developed. Today I would like to sketch the implications of the notion of becoming, the body and (dis)embodiment via Judith Butler, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Simone’s de Beauvoir. The Second Sex marks the naissance as well as the nexus of the notion of “becoming-woman.” Beauvoir puts forth the crucial distinction between sex and gender that changes the discourse around the female, the feminine, and womanhood. Sex—the (mostly) invariant anatomy—is no longer destiny; biological necessity no longer absolutely dictates social values and functions. Gender is simultaneously the body’s variable modes of cultural articulation as well as the site or surface upon which cultural forms are imposed or written. It is a continual modality of bodily interpretation within or partially outside the shifting paradigms of normality. “With this distinction intact,” Butler notes “…all gender is by definition, unnatural” (1986, 35). The presumption of a mimetic relation between sex and gender is thoroughly destabilized. “At its limit,” Butler proposes, “…the sex/gender distinction implies a radical heteronomy of natural bodies and constructed genders with the consequence that ‘being’ female and ‘being’ a woman are two very different sorts of being” (35). Although it is true that to be a woman is to become a woman, Beauvoir’s notion of “becoming” includes a consequential ambiguity that places gender as both a social construction imposed from without as well as a self-construction articulated from within. Butler subsequently proposes that, contrary to the usually oppositional relation between sex and gender, Beauvoir’s account of “becoming” traces the “internal ambiguity of gender…as a corporal locus of cultural possibilities both received and innovated” (37).
This ‘innovation’ or ‘taking on’ of gender implies a situation that must somehow be external to gender. Occupying a position outside of gender from which we may choose our genders might seem impossible (1986, 37). It might seem to postulate the Cartesian notion of a “choosing agent” prior to a choosing gender. However, Simone de Beauvoir’s “becoming” connotes something “other” than the “unsituated Cartesian act” (37). Personal agency does not predicate disembodied agency, as it is that we become a gender and do not become a body. The Cartesian view of the ego, which entails an “ontological distance” from language and culture, precludes the possibility of its corporal verification. Sartre attempts to remedy this situation in Being and Nothingness by understanding the disembodied or transcendent feature of the self as paradoxically, yet indispensably related to embodiment. He posits that although the body is coextensive with personal identity, consciousness is simultaneously outside the body, “My body is a point of departure which I am and which at the same time I surpass…” (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 329. quoted in Butler 1986, 38). According to Butler’s reading of Sartre, the body is “a mode of intentionality, a directional force and mode of desire.” The body is “a condition of access to the world” and as such, it is “a being comported beyond itself.” Thus beings are beyond themselves only to the extent that the body is the lived medium or experiential context for being which implies a perpetual striving for possibilities not yet realized or are in principle unrealizable (the being-for-itself). Butler notes that, “for Sartre the natural body only exists in the mode of being surpassed, for the body is always involved in the human quest to realize possibilities” (38). Sartre states that we are in fact a choice and “to be is to choose ourselves…this inapprehensible body is precisely the necessity that there be a choice, that I do not exist all at once” (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 328. quoted in Butler 1986, 38).
Sartre’s comments on the “natural body” as “inapprehensible” are found transcribed in Simone de Beauvoir’s denial of gender as immanent and natural. She claims that we can never experience ourselves purely as a body or sex because we never know our sex outside of its expression as gender. Lived sex is always already gendered. “Becoming” does not entail movement from “disembodied freedom to cultural embodiment” but rather a movement from one kind of embodiment to another. One is always a body but that body can and will “become” acculturated. Simone de Beauvoir postulates sex as a “fictional heuristic” to demonstrate to us that “gender is non-natural i.e. a culturally contingent aspect of existence” (Butler 1986, 39). The origin and method of becoming a gender thus cannot be defined or linearly mapped because it is itself an originating activity continually occurring.
In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir explicates the claim that to be a gender, to be a woman, is to become. But to become-woman also implies to become-object, the Other—“and the Other nevertheless remains subject in the midst of her resignation.” Thus, “The true problem for woman is to reject these flights from reality and seek self-fulfillment in transcendence” (Beauvoir 1989, 51). Judith Butler highlights this passage in her analysis of Beauvoir’s use of the language of “transcendence.” Butler asserts that Beauvoir’s discussion of the Other lends itself to a strong critique of “the masculine project of disembodiment” as “…self-deluding and, finally, unsatisfactory” (Butler 1986, 43). She asserts that the “Other” with whom the self-asserting man hierarchically contrasts himself is in fact his own embodied alienation. Beauvoir appropriates this Hegelian truth through a Sartrian filter, thus establishing “the essential interdependence of the disembodied ‘man’ and the corporeally determined ‘woman’”(Butler 1986, 43).
Man’s disembodiment is contingent on the condition of women occupying their bodies as their absolute and fundamental identities. If women are their bodies, i.e. if women are only their bodies, this implies that they are not “existing” or living their bodies as a “project and bearer of created meanings.” Women subsequently “monopolize the bodily sphere” as their freedom and consciousness are merely permutations of bodily need. By defining women as such, as “Other,” men thus dispose of their bodies. Butler asserts that “through the shortcut of definition…” men are able to “make themselves other than their bodies, and to make their bodies other than themselves” (44). Man’s embodied existence is thus not his own; he is “beyond sex.” The projection of the body as “Other” requires that the disembodied self or “I” identifies with a noncorporeal reality of transcendence thus placing the body as immanently “Other” (44). Judith Butler’s analysis of the implications of masculine noncorporality deserves to be quoted in full:
From this belief that the body is Other, it is not a far leap to the conclusion that others are their bodies, while the masculine ‘I’ is a noncorporeal phenomenon. The body rendered as Other—the body repressed or denied and, then, projected—reemerges for this ‘I’ as the view of Others as essentially body. Hence, women becomes their essence, and existence as a woman becomes what Hegel termed “a motionless tautology.
Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation of gender as becoming illustrates how the Hegelian dialectical notion of the self and Other purports the failure or at least the limit of Cartesian disembodied freedom. Through Butler’s reading of The Second Sex we have derived an understanding of embodiment that implicitly criticizes the models of noncorporeal transcendence and autonomy characteristic of masculine gender norms. The normatively masculine pursuit of disembodiment is self-deceiving because the body can never truly be denied, thus disembodiment is a becoming of the body into a mode of denial. And as Butler concludes, “the denial of the body…reveals itself as nothing other than the embodiment of denial” (44).
References:
Butler, Judith. 1986. “Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex” in Yale French Studies, No. 72, Simone de Beauvoir: Witness to a Century: 35- 49
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1989. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.
This ‘innovation’ or ‘taking on’ of gender implies a situation that must somehow be external to gender. Occupying a position outside of gender from which we may choose our genders might seem impossible (1986, 37). It might seem to postulate the Cartesian notion of a “choosing agent” prior to a choosing gender. However, Simone de Beauvoir’s “becoming” connotes something “other” than the “unsituated Cartesian act” (37). Personal agency does not predicate disembodied agency, as it is that we become a gender and do not become a body. The Cartesian view of the ego, which entails an “ontological distance” from language and culture, precludes the possibility of its corporal verification. Sartre attempts to remedy this situation in Being and Nothingness by understanding the disembodied or transcendent feature of the self as paradoxically, yet indispensably related to embodiment. He posits that although the body is coextensive with personal identity, consciousness is simultaneously outside the body, “My body is a point of departure which I am and which at the same time I surpass…” (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 329. quoted in Butler 1986, 38). According to Butler’s reading of Sartre, the body is “a mode of intentionality, a directional force and mode of desire.” The body is “a condition of access to the world” and as such, it is “a being comported beyond itself.” Thus beings are beyond themselves only to the extent that the body is the lived medium or experiential context for being which implies a perpetual striving for possibilities not yet realized or are in principle unrealizable (the being-for-itself). Butler notes that, “for Sartre the natural body only exists in the mode of being surpassed, for the body is always involved in the human quest to realize possibilities” (38). Sartre states that we are in fact a choice and “to be is to choose ourselves…this inapprehensible body is precisely the necessity that there be a choice, that I do not exist all at once” (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 328. quoted in Butler 1986, 38).
Sartre’s comments on the “natural body” as “inapprehensible” are found transcribed in Simone de Beauvoir’s denial of gender as immanent and natural. She claims that we can never experience ourselves purely as a body or sex because we never know our sex outside of its expression as gender. Lived sex is always already gendered. “Becoming” does not entail movement from “disembodied freedom to cultural embodiment” but rather a movement from one kind of embodiment to another. One is always a body but that body can and will “become” acculturated. Simone de Beauvoir postulates sex as a “fictional heuristic” to demonstrate to us that “gender is non-natural i.e. a culturally contingent aspect of existence” (Butler 1986, 39). The origin and method of becoming a gender thus cannot be defined or linearly mapped because it is itself an originating activity continually occurring.
In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir explicates the claim that to be a gender, to be a woman, is to become. But to become-woman also implies to become-object, the Other—“and the Other nevertheless remains subject in the midst of her resignation.” Thus, “The true problem for woman is to reject these flights from reality and seek self-fulfillment in transcendence” (Beauvoir 1989, 51). Judith Butler highlights this passage in her analysis of Beauvoir’s use of the language of “transcendence.” Butler asserts that Beauvoir’s discussion of the Other lends itself to a strong critique of “the masculine project of disembodiment” as “…self-deluding and, finally, unsatisfactory” (Butler 1986, 43). She asserts that the “Other” with whom the self-asserting man hierarchically contrasts himself is in fact his own embodied alienation. Beauvoir appropriates this Hegelian truth through a Sartrian filter, thus establishing “the essential interdependence of the disembodied ‘man’ and the corporeally determined ‘woman’”(Butler 1986, 43).
Man’s disembodiment is contingent on the condition of women occupying their bodies as their absolute and fundamental identities. If women are their bodies, i.e. if women are only their bodies, this implies that they are not “existing” or living their bodies as a “project and bearer of created meanings.” Women subsequently “monopolize the bodily sphere” as their freedom and consciousness are merely permutations of bodily need. By defining women as such, as “Other,” men thus dispose of their bodies. Butler asserts that “through the shortcut of definition…” men are able to “make themselves other than their bodies, and to make their bodies other than themselves” (44). Man’s embodied existence is thus not his own; he is “beyond sex.” The projection of the body as “Other” requires that the disembodied self or “I” identifies with a noncorporeal reality of transcendence thus placing the body as immanently “Other” (44). Judith Butler’s analysis of the implications of masculine noncorporality deserves to be quoted in full:
From this belief that the body is Other, it is not a far leap to the conclusion that others are their bodies, while the masculine ‘I’ is a noncorporeal phenomenon. The body rendered as Other—the body repressed or denied and, then, projected—reemerges for this ‘I’ as the view of Others as essentially body. Hence, women becomes their essence, and existence as a woman becomes what Hegel termed “a motionless tautology.
Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation of gender as becoming illustrates how the Hegelian dialectical notion of the self and Other purports the failure or at least the limit of Cartesian disembodied freedom. Through Butler’s reading of The Second Sex we have derived an understanding of embodiment that implicitly criticizes the models of noncorporeal transcendence and autonomy characteristic of masculine gender norms. The normatively masculine pursuit of disembodiment is self-deceiving because the body can never truly be denied, thus disembodiment is a becoming of the body into a mode of denial. And as Butler concludes, “the denial of the body…reveals itself as nothing other than the embodiment of denial” (44).
References:
Butler, Judith. 1986. “Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex” in Yale French Studies, No. 72, Simone de Beauvoir: Witness to a Century: 35- 49
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1989. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Uncritical Exuberance? Judith Butler on Obamamania
I wholly agree with the points Judith Butler makes in her salient and important analysis of the left's hyperbolic characterization of Obama as a prophetic symbol of "redemption."
"...if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. "
Via Angry White Kid
Uncritical Exuberance?
Judith Butler
Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."
It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.
Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.
As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?
There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.
The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?
To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).
If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.
"...if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. "
Via Angry White Kid
Uncritical Exuberance?
Judith Butler
Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."
It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.
Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.
As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?
There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.
The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?
To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).
If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Huitième et un
Also this is some funny stuff.
Sweet Godzilla Cakes:
And:
Babies Are Notoriously Resistant to Spin Control
via Overheard in New York, Jul 8, 2008
Sweet Godzilla Cakes:
And:
Babies Are Notoriously Resistant to Spin Control
Overzealous new mother to oblivious young infant: This little piggy went to market, this little piggy stayed at home,this little piggy had roast beef, this little piggy had none.
Infant: Wahhhhh!!!!
Mother: No, no, no! It's ok! That little piggy didn't want roast beef! He was offered it but he turned it down. Maybe that little piggy is vegan! Yeah! Maybe he's vegan! Don't cry!
--NJ Transit
via Overheard in New York, Jul 8, 2008
Huitième
Its been a week since my last entry, but I've been quite busy interviewing don't you worry. In the meantime check this out:
An Excellent Website
leaving
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.482)
territorial code margins
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.322)
secret language
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.98)
networking
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.432)
point uncertain
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.380)
secret language
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.98)
An Excellent Website
leaving
They are nomads by dint of not moving, not migrating, of holding a smooth space that they refuse to leave, that they leave only in order to conquer and die._______________________
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.482)
territorial code margins
The territory arises in a free margin of the code, one that is not indeterminate but rather is determined differently. Each milieu has its own code, and there is pepetual transcoding between milieus; the territory, on the other hand, seems to form at the level of a certain decoding._______________________
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.322)
secret language
To be a foreigner, but in one's own tongue, not only when speaking a language other than one's own. To be bilingual, multilingual, but in one and the same language, without even dialect or patois. To be a bastard, a half-breed, but through a purification of race. That is when style becomes a language. That is when language becomes intensive, a pure continuum of values and intensities. That is when language becomes secret, yet has nothing to hide, as opposed to when one carves out a secret subsystem within language._______________________
One attains this result only by sobriety, creative subtraction.
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.98)
networking
The town only exists as a function of circulation, and of circuts; it is a remarkable point on the circuts that create it and which it creates.... It is defined by entries and exits.... It is a phenomenon of transconsistency, a network, because it is fundamentally in contact with other towns. It represents a threshold of deterritorialization, because whatever the material involved, it must be deterritorialized to enter the network, to sumbit to the polarization...._______________________
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.432)
point uncertain
The nomad is not at all the same as the migrant; for the migrant goes principally from one point to another, even if the second point is uncertain, unforseen, or not well localized. But the nomad goes from point to point only as a consequence and as a factual necessity; in principle, points for him are always relays along a trajectory._______________________
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.380)
secret language
To be a foreigner, but in one's own tongue, not only when speaking a language other than one's own. To be bilingual, multilingual, but in one and the same language, without even dialect or patois. To be a bastard, a half-breed, but through a purification of race. That is when style becomes a language. That is when language becomes intensive, a pure continuum of values and intensities. That is when language becomes secret, yet has nothing to hide, as opposed to when one carves out a secret subsystem within language._______________________
One attains this result only by sobriety, creative subtraction.
-- G.Deleuze and/or F.Guattari
A Thousand Plateaus (p.98)
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Septième et un
II things:
ONE:
Kinetic Steam Works:
It began three years ago as the Miss Rockaway Armada, a group of New York City area artists and assorted others who decided to travel down the Mississippi on very handmade rafts bedecked and festooned with art.In August of 2008, the Hudson River will be the canvas, from Albany-Troy all the way down to Brooklyn. Seven crafts are scheduled to float down the river The boats will be powered by alternate energy systems, which is where K.S.W. comes in. KSW restored an old paddle-wheel steamboat (see below).
In New York, K.S.W.'s steamboat (arriving by truck) will support an enormous sculptural array installed by an artist named Swoon, the larger project's creative leader.
They had a steam powered blender making margaritas all day. The boat was christened at 4:00PM Pacific time.
TWO:
A FUCKING FIRE:
There was a FUCKING FIRE ABOVE THE BUS STOP HOUSE THIS MORNING! One of the upstairs neightbors nearly burned the apartment down with her terrarium lamp. Lucky Abdul-Latif woke me up to get out of the smoke. The fire department came out in full force. Everything is fine now.
Roast Bearded Dragon Lizard anyone? Makes a lovely breakfast! Yum!
ONE:
Kinetic Steam Works:
It began three years ago as the Miss Rockaway Armada, a group of New York City area artists and assorted others who decided to travel down the Mississippi on very handmade rafts bedecked and festooned with art.In August of 2008, the Hudson River will be the canvas, from Albany-Troy all the way down to Brooklyn. Seven crafts are scheduled to float down the river The boats will be powered by alternate energy systems, which is where K.S.W. comes in. KSW restored an old paddle-wheel steamboat (see below).
In New York, K.S.W.'s steamboat (arriving by truck) will support an enormous sculptural array installed by an artist named Swoon, the larger project's creative leader.
They had a steam powered blender making margaritas all day. The boat was christened at 4:00PM Pacific time.
TWO:
A FUCKING FIRE:
There was a FUCKING FIRE ABOVE THE BUS STOP HOUSE THIS MORNING! One of the upstairs neightbors nearly burned the apartment down with her terrarium lamp. Lucky Abdul-Latif woke me up to get out of the smoke. The fire department came out in full force. Everything is fine now.
Roast Bearded Dragon Lizard anyone? Makes a lovely breakfast! Yum!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Septième
Here is an update of the work I've been doing in regards to my thesis. I'm currently scheduling and carrying out interviews with people who live and think gender in their everyday lives.
Check it out:
Contemporary cultural accounts of masculinity within which masculinity always boils owns to the social, cultural, and political effects of male embodiment and male privilege can only read masculinity as the dominant, power, and active counterpart to feminine passivity and thus white male subjectivities. In Female Masculinity, Judith Halberstam stages multiple interventions into contemporary gender theory by cleaving masculinity and maleness. Female Masculinity first names a deliberate ‘counterfeit’ masculinity that destabilizes the authentication of masculinity through maleness and maleness alone; second it presents an alternative modality that detaches misogyny from maleness and implicit social power from masculinity; third female masculinity demonstrates the nomadic potential of bodies to construct ‘inauthentic’ forms of gender that position themselves in opposition to hegemonic socio-historical gender norms. Desiring the producing and deployment of these alternative forms can foster new social, sexual and political relations.
Halberstam suggests that one way the discourse on masculinity may be shifted may be to interrogate the forces that territorialize authentic masculinity. Normative masculinity, while presenting itself as authentic, concurrently displays an anxiety about that authenticity. Male masculinity thus demands authentication. Halberstam points out that the need of male masculinities to necessitate recognition counterintuitively marks their instability and detachment from the real ‘authentic’ male masculinity. The questions then follows: Do male bodies living male lives, living masculinity constitute ‘authentic’ masculinity? Do heterosexual white men experience their masculinity as authentic most of the time or even any of the time?
Due to the acceptance of such a thoroughly naturalized conceptualization of the inevitability of male power, the coincidence of possessing male genitalia, performing heteronormative masculinity, and accessing socio-political power makes it unclear as to whether or not one comes before the others. The social power structure enables Freud to read the penis as generative of social power. However if the penis does not constitute itself as the unitary phallic organ, other bodily apparatuses can be phallic and other bodies can access the social power that seems to have been reserved for white males. This power can be appropriated by female bodied individuals by both making the feminine desirable and powerful, but also by making maleness nonessential to masculinity.
In Bodies That Matter, Judith Butler rereads Freud in order to underscore a incongruity in his text between the penis and phallic power. Freud lapses into essentialism because he cannot truly sustain the possibility of the nonmale phallic body. Butler posits that, as power works through bodies and desires rather than through repression, we can discuss the “transferability of the phallus” and the existence of the “lesbian phallus” through exploding the bonds between white male bodies and white male masculine power (57-67).
The body in Lacan’s work is always a phantasmic body. Butler comments: “Lacan establishes the morphology of the body as a psychically invested projection, an idealization or “fiction” of the body as a totality and locus of control” (Lesbian,” 73). If all bodies and phantasmic then nothing makes the “lesbian phallus” impossible and the male phallus primary. If the phallus only symbolizes the penis, then it cannot be the penis. Thus the phallus is not the penis and the two are only synthesized by “determinate negation” (84).
I believe it is pertinent to focus on detailing minority forms of masculinity that emerge from the project of disentangling maleness manhood and masculinity. The question is not necessarily how males can ‘do’ femininity, but how males ‘do’ or can ‘re-do’ masculinity.
If we can situate the phallus as merely a metaphor for masculine power, what then can serve as a metaphor for masculine vulnerability?
In his essay “Vas,” Paul Smith successfully uses feminist psychoanalytic formulations of desire are to distinguish new models of masculine desire and embodiment that simultaneously respond to the variable socio-cultural contexts in which these desires act. Smith claims that, “Male sexuality is both difficult and deadly easy” (1028). Psychoanalysis is a model of human sexuality that takes the male subject as normative and territorializes the female body as a site of neurosis. As such, Smith posits that male failure will always be received as the presence of femininity; the female body becomes subject, always the embodied other.
Smith goes through great pains in his attempt to dislodge the phallus from its place as the primary signifier of masculinity. He situates the phallus as merely a metaphor for masculine power. The term vas avoids the unitary symbolism of the phallus and encompasses the other genital signifiers of maleness which add up to an apparatus rather than an organ. Vas is defined first as male genitalia in common. the testicles as a site of vulnerability and the penis as a site of power. Second and most importantly, vas formulates maleness as gear or equipment and not as the expression of an essential masculinity. Last he discusses vas in terms of the male orgasm as spending or loss. Smith neglects however to mention the anus as a site of vulnerability, nor as a site of sexual pleasure. Recasting the anus as integral to genitalia, as an apparatus that is universally applicable and available could be one way of moving toward new masculinities, minority masculinities that embrace vulnerability and penetrability. Calvin Thomas has theorized the both male anus and mouth as symbolic sites of experiencing feminized sexuality and thus moving toward true feminist male masculinity.
As gender relations shift and changeover the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, so too must the descriptive and interpretive models we use to examine them. Therefore masculinity must be recognized as a dynamic between embodiment, identification, social privilege, racial and class formulation, and desire, rather than the consequence of having a specific body.
Check it out:
Contemporary cultural accounts of masculinity within which masculinity always boils owns to the social, cultural, and political effects of male embodiment and male privilege can only read masculinity as the dominant, power, and active counterpart to feminine passivity and thus white male subjectivities. In Female Masculinity, Judith Halberstam stages multiple interventions into contemporary gender theory by cleaving masculinity and maleness. Female Masculinity first names a deliberate ‘counterfeit’ masculinity that destabilizes the authentication of masculinity through maleness and maleness alone; second it presents an alternative modality that detaches misogyny from maleness and implicit social power from masculinity; third female masculinity demonstrates the nomadic potential of bodies to construct ‘inauthentic’ forms of gender that position themselves in opposition to hegemonic socio-historical gender norms. Desiring the producing and deployment of these alternative forms can foster new social, sexual and political relations.
Halberstam suggests that one way the discourse on masculinity may be shifted may be to interrogate the forces that territorialize authentic masculinity. Normative masculinity, while presenting itself as authentic, concurrently displays an anxiety about that authenticity. Male masculinity thus demands authentication. Halberstam points out that the need of male masculinities to necessitate recognition counterintuitively marks their instability and detachment from the real ‘authentic’ male masculinity. The questions then follows: Do male bodies living male lives, living masculinity constitute ‘authentic’ masculinity? Do heterosexual white men experience their masculinity as authentic most of the time or even any of the time?
Due to the acceptance of such a thoroughly naturalized conceptualization of the inevitability of male power, the coincidence of possessing male genitalia, performing heteronormative masculinity, and accessing socio-political power makes it unclear as to whether or not one comes before the others. The social power structure enables Freud to read the penis as generative of social power. However if the penis does not constitute itself as the unitary phallic organ, other bodily apparatuses can be phallic and other bodies can access the social power that seems to have been reserved for white males. This power can be appropriated by female bodied individuals by both making the feminine desirable and powerful, but also by making maleness nonessential to masculinity.
In Bodies That Matter, Judith Butler rereads Freud in order to underscore a incongruity in his text between the penis and phallic power. Freud lapses into essentialism because he cannot truly sustain the possibility of the nonmale phallic body. Butler posits that, as power works through bodies and desires rather than through repression, we can discuss the “transferability of the phallus” and the existence of the “lesbian phallus” through exploding the bonds between white male bodies and white male masculine power (57-67).
The body in Lacan’s work is always a phantasmic body. Butler comments: “Lacan establishes the morphology of the body as a psychically invested projection, an idealization or “fiction” of the body as a totality and locus of control” (Lesbian,” 73). If all bodies and phantasmic then nothing makes the “lesbian phallus” impossible and the male phallus primary. If the phallus only symbolizes the penis, then it cannot be the penis. Thus the phallus is not the penis and the two are only synthesized by “determinate negation” (84).
I believe it is pertinent to focus on detailing minority forms of masculinity that emerge from the project of disentangling maleness manhood and masculinity. The question is not necessarily how males can ‘do’ femininity, but how males ‘do’ or can ‘re-do’ masculinity.
If we can situate the phallus as merely a metaphor for masculine power, what then can serve as a metaphor for masculine vulnerability?
In his essay “Vas,” Paul Smith successfully uses feminist psychoanalytic formulations of desire are to distinguish new models of masculine desire and embodiment that simultaneously respond to the variable socio-cultural contexts in which these desires act. Smith claims that, “Male sexuality is both difficult and deadly easy” (1028). Psychoanalysis is a model of human sexuality that takes the male subject as normative and territorializes the female body as a site of neurosis. As such, Smith posits that male failure will always be received as the presence of femininity; the female body becomes subject, always the embodied other.
Smith goes through great pains in his attempt to dislodge the phallus from its place as the primary signifier of masculinity. He situates the phallus as merely a metaphor for masculine power. The term vas avoids the unitary symbolism of the phallus and encompasses the other genital signifiers of maleness which add up to an apparatus rather than an organ. Vas is defined first as male genitalia in common. the testicles as a site of vulnerability and the penis as a site of power. Second and most importantly, vas formulates maleness as gear or equipment and not as the expression of an essential masculinity. Last he discusses vas in terms of the male orgasm as spending or loss. Smith neglects however to mention the anus as a site of vulnerability, nor as a site of sexual pleasure. Recasting the anus as integral to genitalia, as an apparatus that is universally applicable and available could be one way of moving toward new masculinities, minority masculinities that embrace vulnerability and penetrability. Calvin Thomas has theorized the both male anus and mouth as symbolic sites of experiencing feminized sexuality and thus moving toward true feminist male masculinity.
As gender relations shift and changeover the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, so too must the descriptive and interpretive models we use to examine them. Therefore masculinity must be recognized as a dynamic between embodiment, identification, social privilege, racial and class formulation, and desire, rather than the consequence of having a specific body.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Sixième et un
My favorite days are like this:
Also:
A Sociopolitical Justification for Post-Modern Man's Thirst for Pee?
American grad student: Should I be in a fetish video?
French grad student: What would be the point?
American grad student: What do you mean? It's a fetish video.
French grad student: But what would be the point? What's the thesis?
--Fayerweather Hall, Columbia University
Overheard by: The Evil Triangle
via Overheard in New York, Jun 27, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sixième
Friday was a harbinger of empowerment. I attended San Francisco's Critical Mass which haphazardly intersected up with the trans-march at two different points during the evening. I have never seen as many people riding together on bicycles as I did yesterday. There were literally thousands of us maneuvering through the tightly packed lanes. We started at the northeast end of Market street and proceeded to ride on a roundabout route through downtown, along Broadway, through a couple of tunnels, over to the Mission and Dolores Park where we had our first encounter with the trans-march, and finally after a loop through the Haight we met up with them again.
I then joined the trans-march. The route circled through the Castro, went down Market and then back to Dolores Park. The Trans March is a grassroots community building political event, celebrating and welcoming transgender people of all types, and their supportive allies. The march was meant to demonstrate Trans visibility, inclusiveness, and civil rights. The march marked the start of Pride Weekend in San Francisco. The theme of this year's march was "Marching for a Gender Inclusive ENDA", The objective was to bring a focus on transgender civil rights and to encourage the support of the broader LGBT ‘community.’ The keynote speaker for this year's event was be Donna Rose, the former HRC board member who resigned over the exclusion of Trans=people from the 2007 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
There were so many immaculate, customized bicycles and beautiful people to look at it was practically overwhelming.
I then joined the trans-march. The route circled through the Castro, went down Market and then back to Dolores Park. The Trans March is a grassroots community building political event, celebrating and welcoming transgender people of all types, and their supportive allies. The march was meant to demonstrate Trans visibility, inclusiveness, and civil rights. The march marked the start of Pride Weekend in San Francisco. The theme of this year's march was "Marching for a Gender Inclusive ENDA", The objective was to bring a focus on transgender civil rights and to encourage the support of the broader LGBT ‘community.’ The keynote speaker for this year's event was be Donna Rose, the former HRC board member who resigned over the exclusion of Trans=people from the 2007 Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
There were so many immaculate, customized bicycles and beautiful people to look at it was practically overwhelming.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Ccinquième(s) et un
Gender Guesser. I came across this online application that supposedly guesses the "gender" of the individual who wrote whatever text you enter into the system. It is highly problematic for a plethora of reasons, the most obvious of which includes their lack of distinction between sex and gender. They also profile "female" writing as weak and fiction-like, while they profile "male" writing as strong and nonfiction-like. It is apparent that their methods are inherently flawed as their historical frame of reference is the British National Corpus, which like most literary canons writes out the female by normalizing the male. Additionally, access to resources and institutions has historically favored males. The except below interests me because it reinforces the importance of subjectivizing maleness/masculinity, and subsequently rescinding the normative/hegemonic position they hold.
In particular, we find significant differences between male- and female-authored documents in the use of pronouns and certain types of noun modifiers: although the total number of nominals used by male and female authors is virtually identical, females use many more pronouns and males use many more noun specifiers. More generally , it is found that even in formal writing, female writing exhibits greater usage of features identified by previous researchers as "involved" while male writing exhibits greater usage of features which have been identified as "informational". Finally, a strong correlation between the characteristics of male (female) writing and those of nonfiction (fiction) is demonstrated.
For further reading, check out the full paper.
In particular, we find significant differences between male- and female-authored documents in the use of pronouns and certain types of noun modifiers: although the total number of nominals used by male and female authors is virtually identical, females use many more pronouns and males use many more noun specifiers. More generally , it is found that even in formal writing, female writing exhibits greater usage of features identified by previous researchers as "involved" while male writing exhibits greater usage of features which have been identified as "informational". Finally, a strong correlation between the characteristics of male (female) writing and those of nonfiction (fiction) is demonstrated.
For further reading, check out the full paper.
Ccinquième(s)
I moved my stuff into Bus Stop House at 2332 Fulton [& Stanyon] San Francisco, CA. I had quite an enjoyable evening. There was some bomb-ass food at the potluck and I met so many excellent new people. We made some scrumptious wheat flour pancakes this morning and French-pressed a like 3 pitchers of Fazenda Esperança.
View Larger Map
Wrote out some more questions for my interviews. Let me know what you think.
________________________________________________________________
Do you think there are specific symbolic practices, rituals and discourses which effectively promote bonding of identity-based groups in opposition to a hegemonic social order? Do these promote an internal equality or serve rather as merely a mythical rhetoric within that oppositional discourse? For example: patriarchal dynamics within queer contexts, authentic versus inauthentic aesthetics of queerness, etc.
Does this sort of nationalism of the sexual subaltern, the sexual ‘other’ in some ways promote the hetero/homo binary that queer theory seeks to dismantle?
Does the ‘shock’ aesthetic of queer direct action pose a serious threat to the status quo or act as merely another disruptive spectacle amongst many? For example, during the carnival atmosphere of pride parade.
While the purposes of the solidarity of the signified in a political context might be to remain as a permanent site of contest , those that view, understand or receive the event may well opt to understand those involved as constituting coherent subjects with fixed unquestionable identities based not on an opposition to intersectional hegemonies, but on their coherent ‘disruptive’ aesthetic. That a coalitional group can be read against their intentions shores up potential identitarian subversion, and forecloses the possibility for those who cannot affiliate with the presumed identities from joining that seemingly unified coalition.
What are your thoughts on the argument that males are no less gendered than females or that masculinity is no less a social construction or performative masquerade than is femininity?
Is this complacent with the assumption that men and women are equally installed into symmetrically gendered positions?
Does the social and symbolic process of gendering sexed bodies maintain unequal and asymmetrical relations of power?
To leave masculinity unstudied is to leave it naturalized and thus render it less permeable to change. A ‘gender studies’ that focuses on masculinity can designate the critical process by which males learn from feminism in order to subvert the perpetuation/reproduction of normative/hegemonic masculinity.
How might a pro-feminist reconstitution or reconfiguration of male subjectivity proceed? I would argue that it must begin with prefiguring a variable masculine aesthetic that can operate either independently from or in conjunction with the phallic male body. This initial recognition of a variable masculine aesthetic as separate from the phallic male body allows for interrogating hegemonic/normative organs operating with outside and through the body. Only then can the body be reinscribed with what Lee Edelman calls, “A category-subverting alterity within the conceptual framework of the masculine.”
Is there an aversion to penetratrability or to vulnerability associated with masculinity? Does this prevent self-identifying men from embodying feminist struggles?
Catherine Waldby writes that “anal eroticism carries disturbing feminizing connotations” in our society. Could the male anus have the potential to become a site of significant disturbance and deconstruction of hegemonic/normative masculinity? I believe it could because it allows access to the vulnerable interior space. It deterritorializes male bodies and masculinity, extracting and projecting sexed and gendered bodies from patriarchal, normative histories.
It is the constitutive relationship between misogyny and homophobia in the formation of the ‘properly’ phallic, straight male subjects that makes the link between feminism and queer theory crucial for those interested in de-forming and transforming masculinity.
View Larger Map
Wrote out some more questions for my interviews. Let me know what you think.
________________________________________________________________
Do you think there are specific symbolic practices, rituals and discourses which effectively promote bonding of identity-based groups in opposition to a hegemonic social order? Do these promote an internal equality or serve rather as merely a mythical rhetoric within that oppositional discourse? For example: patriarchal dynamics within queer contexts, authentic versus inauthentic aesthetics of queerness, etc.
Does this sort of nationalism of the sexual subaltern, the sexual ‘other’ in some ways promote the hetero/homo binary that queer theory seeks to dismantle?
Does the ‘shock’ aesthetic of queer direct action pose a serious threat to the status quo or act as merely another disruptive spectacle amongst many? For example, during the carnival atmosphere of pride parade.
While the purposes of the solidarity of the signified in a political context might be to remain as a permanent site of contest , those that view, understand or receive the event may well opt to understand those involved as constituting coherent subjects with fixed unquestionable identities based not on an opposition to intersectional hegemonies, but on their coherent ‘disruptive’ aesthetic. That a coalitional group can be read against their intentions shores up potential identitarian subversion, and forecloses the possibility for those who cannot affiliate with the presumed identities from joining that seemingly unified coalition.
What are your thoughts on the argument that males are no less gendered than females or that masculinity is no less a social construction or performative masquerade than is femininity?
Is this complacent with the assumption that men and women are equally installed into symmetrically gendered positions?
Does the social and symbolic process of gendering sexed bodies maintain unequal and asymmetrical relations of power?
To leave masculinity unstudied is to leave it naturalized and thus render it less permeable to change. A ‘gender studies’ that focuses on masculinity can designate the critical process by which males learn from feminism in order to subvert the perpetuation/reproduction of normative/hegemonic masculinity.
How might a pro-feminist reconstitution or reconfiguration of male subjectivity proceed? I would argue that it must begin with prefiguring a variable masculine aesthetic that can operate either independently from or in conjunction with the phallic male body. This initial recognition of a variable masculine aesthetic as separate from the phallic male body allows for interrogating hegemonic/normative organs operating with outside and through the body. Only then can the body be reinscribed with what Lee Edelman calls, “A category-subverting alterity within the conceptual framework of the masculine.”
Is there an aversion to penetratrability or to vulnerability associated with masculinity? Does this prevent self-identifying men from embodying feminist struggles?
Catherine Waldby writes that “anal eroticism carries disturbing feminizing connotations” in our society. Could the male anus have the potential to become a site of significant disturbance and deconstruction of hegemonic/normative masculinity? I believe it could because it allows access to the vulnerable interior space. It deterritorializes male bodies and masculinity, extracting and projecting sexed and gendered bodies from patriarchal, normative histories.
It is the constitutive relationship between misogyny and homophobia in the formation of the ‘properly’ phallic, straight male subjects that makes the link between feminism and queer theory crucial for those interested in de-forming and transforming masculinity.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Quatrième et un
BIKE RIDE!
Riding the hills of San Francisco on a brake-less track bike geared at 49x17 is incredibly dangerous, hard, and fun.
View Larger Map
Kentaro showed me around Oakland and Berkeley. The town are weird little suburban-ish enclaves of hippie-dippy types, liberals and breeders. It sort of reminds me of Vermont. There were all sorts of quirky stores selling items ranging from strange to useless. The Berkeley campus is beautiful. Its the perfect amalgam or "mash up" of classical institutional architecture and nature. We had some excellent pizza after hunting unsuccessfully for the vegan donut shop. Kentaro had to go to work so I followed him back into the city.
I then decided I wanted to go to the Golden Gate Bridge. There were some seriously fucking steep grades on the way there and back. check it out:
As they say out here on the west coast, it was a "hella tight" ride.
Riding the hills of San Francisco on a brake-less track bike geared at 49x17 is incredibly dangerous, hard, and fun.
View Larger Map
Kentaro showed me around Oakland and Berkeley. The town are weird little suburban-ish enclaves of hippie-dippy types, liberals and breeders. It sort of reminds me of Vermont. There were all sorts of quirky stores selling items ranging from strange to useless. The Berkeley campus is beautiful. Its the perfect amalgam or "mash up" of classical institutional architecture and nature. We had some excellent pizza after hunting unsuccessfully for the vegan donut shop. Kentaro had to go to work so I followed him back into the city.
I then decided I wanted to go to the Golden Gate Bridge. There were some seriously fucking steep grades on the way there and back. check it out:
As they say out here on the west coast, it was a "hella tight" ride.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Quatrième
On Saturday I went to a weekly Gay shame meeting where I found out about the Worst of SF 2008 Awards Ceremony. The info on it is as follows and the photos are below. It was quite fierce.
Mission Statement: To raise awareness and galvanize San Francisco communities that are inspired by local current and critical issues by use of targeted, public action.
Awarding Those Responsible for Destroying SF Neighborhoods!
WHO: a coalition of social awareness groups concerned about the on-going destruction of San Francisco's low and middle class neighborhoods through real estate speculation. Coalition members include: Gay Shame, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Queer Anti-Displacement Coalition, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Freedom Socialist Party, Radical Women, Pride At Work, CitiSTOP, St. Peter's Housing Committee, Castro Residents for Fair Housing, Brass Liberation Orchestra, Tenant Attorney Phil S. Horne, Activist Tommi Avicolli Mecca, members of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, and representatives of the San Francisco Community Land Trust.
WHAT: Mock, outdoor public awards ceremony to "honor" greedy landlord speculators most responsible for the gentrification and destruction of San Francisco's communities. This is done with a spirit of community, FUN, and the opportunity to deliver a spectacular, FREE public show. We encourage "campy" themes and attitudes: (i.e.) drag outfits, colorful costumes, fierce attitudes, and outrageous behavior. The event will be filmed by a documentary filmmaker, which will be shared through internet distribution and local screenings in order to raise awareness.
WHEN: Saturday, June 21st at 8:00 p.m.
WHERE: Harvey Milk Plaza at Castro and Market in San Francisco (
WHY: To stand up against gentrification by landlord speculators who are destroying our neighborhoods and communities.
XO
MC
Mission Statement: To raise awareness and galvanize San Francisco communities that are inspired by local current and critical issues by use of targeted, public action.
Awarding Those Responsible for Destroying SF Neighborhoods!
WHO: a coalition of social awareness groups concerned about the on-going destruction of San Francisco's low and middle class neighborhoods through real estate speculation. Coalition members include: Gay Shame, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Queer Anti-Displacement Coalition, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Freedom Socialist Party, Radical Women, Pride At Work, CitiSTOP, St. Peter's Housing Committee, Castro Residents for Fair Housing, Brass Liberation Orchestra, Tenant Attorney Phil S. Horne, Activist Tommi Avicolli Mecca, members of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, and representatives of the San Francisco Community Land Trust.
WHAT: Mock, outdoor public awards ceremony to "honor" greedy landlord speculators most responsible for the gentrification and destruction of San Francisco's communities. This is done with a spirit of community, FUN, and the opportunity to deliver a spectacular, FREE public show. We encourage "campy" themes and attitudes: (i.e.) drag outfits, colorful costumes, fierce attitudes, and outrageous behavior. The event will be filmed by a documentary filmmaker, which will be shared through internet distribution and local screenings in order to raise awareness.
WHEN: Saturday, June 21st at 8:00 p.m.
WHERE: Harvey Milk Plaza at Castro and Market in San Francisco (
WHY: To stand up against gentrification by landlord speculators who are destroying our neighborhoods and communities.
XO
MC
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Troisième
What a night! My evening went as follows. I attended a lecture at Modern Times Bookstore given by Terence Kissack on his new book Free Comrades. You can listen to the recording I made here. He investigates public records, journals, and books published between 1895 and 1917 to expand the scope of the history of queer politics in the
In Free Comrades Kissack examines the trial and imprisonment of Oscar Wilde, the life and work of Walt Whitman, periodicals including Tucker's Liberty and Leonard Abbott's The Free Comrade, and the frank treatment of homosexual relations in Berkman's Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist. By defending the right to enter into same-sex partnerships free from social and governmental restraints, the anarchists posed a challenge to society still not met today
After that I met up with my friends Alex and Cody (both of which I haven't seen in years) along with a few others and went to Taqueria Guadalajara. You've never had a burrito until you've had one out here in
We ended up going to a queer dance party in downtown. It was a benefit for the campaign to Free the
I was in a shitty mood and didn't feel like doing much other than drinking. I wanted to dance but couldn't find anybody that I felt like dancing with so I helped Eric Pass out fliers for this event.
I did get another flier for a queer discussion group to be held on the same night regarding the assimilationist agenda of the pride movement. I'm excited to participate.
Alex and I left the party to hang out with some young punkers at their apartment. We mostly talked about tattoos, beer, and sludge/post-metal. Good times all around. Alex and I went back to crash at his place. It ended up being another excellent night.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Seconde
So I've spent most of the day sipping coffee in front of this laptop, occasionally eating leftover Mediterranean food and even more occasionally doing work. One of the many ways I procrastinate is by browsing street fashion blogs. Today I was a bit distraught when I discovered that three year old boys from Helsinki have a better sense of style than I do. Check out little Jemu. What the fuck?
I've drafted two preliminary sets of questions. I have a hell of a lot more work ahead of me but in the meantime I'll throw them up on here as a record of being somewhat productive today. I also found some fun little graphics that I will be posting at certain times after certain events. You figure out why.
The two sets of questions are fairly satisfactory so far. Check 'em.
I've drafted two preliminary sets of questions. I have a hell of a lot more work ahead of me but in the meantime I'll throw them up on here as a record of being somewhat productive today. I also found some fun little graphics that I will be posting at certain times after certain events. You figure out why.
The two sets of questions are fairly satisfactory so far. Check 'em.
Personal:
What is your age?
What is your biological sex?
What gender pronoun do you prefer?
Do identify with a particular race or ethnicity?
What does queer mean to you?
-Do you yourself indentify as queer?
-Could you talk about a few ways that you see yourself embodying what it means to be queer?
-Are there intrinsic links between queer struggle and challenging power? What are they?
-Is there a disconnect between queer theoretical discourse and queer praxis at the grassroots level?
-What constitutes this disconnect?
-Is their possibility for a synthesis?
-What might a synthesis look like?
What does masculinity mean to you?
-Are their different forms of masculinity due to race, class, etc.?
-Do you see cultural institutions reinforcing particular constructions of masculinity? What are they?
-Do you in identify with any attributes of masculinity? Why [not]?
-Do you see this as possibly conflicting with what it means to be queer? Why [not]?
What does femininity mean to you?
-Are their different forms of femininity due to race, class, etc.?
-Do you see cultural institutions reinforcing particular constructions of femininity? What are they?
-Do you in identify with any attributes of femininity? Why [not]?
-Do you see this as possibly conflicting with what it means to be queer? Why [not]?
Do you believe that the cultural connotations of what it means to be masculine as well as the cultural connotations of what it means to be feminine have limited the ways in which you can identify?
Theoretical:
If as Bulter posits, gender is a “construction that regularly conceals its genesis” and as such, the possibilities for the manifestation of alternative corporeal styles are entrenched in “punitively regulated cultural fictions” these alternative styles will necessarily always be suspect (Butler 1990, pg. 190). That said, despite the potential for re-entrenchment within dominant or hegemonic configurations of gender, are their possibilities for the construction of positive masculinities?
Do you believe that there are multiple levels or Deleuzian “plateaus” of gendered stylization? Does the stylized aesthetic of the sexed body also necessarily include “bodily gestures, movements, and styles of various kinds” (Butler 1990 pg. 191)? For example, if a male bodied individual maintains a bodily aesthetic characterized by signs that by normative cultural standards would be considered thoroughly masculine e.g. full beard, muscular build, etc. yet performs variant forms of gendered stylization what may we consider him/her?
If gender is also an extroverted temporal identity performed through a “stylized repetition of acts” spaces for non-normative masculinity can only be opened up once an individual has passed through certain feminized temporalities e.g. open up oral and anal modes of penetration, interrogating sexist practices, rescinding control. I believe the possibilities for “alternative” masculinities exist only within or after passing through these temporal manifestations of style. Only once an individual experiences feminine corporal attributes can they break away from the dominant paradigm of normative masculinity.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Premier
Last night was my first in San Francisco. After not sleeping for about 36 hours sans a 3 hour nap on the plane I was pretty exhausted. But I managed to keep it together enough to go to Criminal Queers: A Night of Performance Protest Abolition:
Jason was a lovely computer programmer polygamist from the early 90's:
It was held at the SomArts building on 934 Brannan st:
There were various installations, sculptures and paintings that were hosted by the Queer Cultural center as part of the National Queer arts festival:
The main event of the night included speakers discussing various topics involving queer issues related to the prison industrial complex. Nat Smith talked about Critical Resistance. Miss Major introduced the digital storytelling project. Bea and Xan from the Bay Area New Jersey 4 Solidarity Committee discussed the continuing efforts to support them. Ralowe T. Ampu gave a brief synopsis of a Gay Shame event to protest the Lower Polk Neighbors. To close the performances, Chris and Eric from Gay Shame showed a trailer from their upcoming film "Criminal Queers," a sequel to their first piece "Homotopia". Criminal Queers visualizes a radical queer struggle against the Prison Industrial Complex and toward a world without walls. The event was used as a fundraiser for the TIP [Trans/Gender Variant in Prison] Committee.TIP's mission is to end the discrimination, medical neglect, abuse and violence experienced by transgender and gender variant people, and people with intersex conditions (TGI) in CA prisons.
Critical Resistance is a grassroots organization working toward building an international movement to dismantle the prison-industrial complex. It has existed for nearly ten years and was founded by Angela Davis, Rose Braz, and Ruth Wilson Gilmore among others. From their mission statement: "Critical Resistance seeks to build an international movement to end the Prison Industrial Complex by challenging the belief that caging and controlling people makes us safe." Their vision is to create genuinely safe, healthy communities that respond to harm without relying on prisons and punishment. Their Ten Year anniversary is coming up this fall.
Here is little background on the NJ4 from their website:
"On August 18, 2006, seven young African American lesbians traveled to New York City from their homes in Newark for a regular night out. When walking down the street, a man sexually propositioned one of the women. After refusing to take no for an answer, he assaulted them. The women tried to defend themselves, and a fight broke out. The women were charged with Gang Assault in the 2nd degree, a Class C Felony with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years. Patreese Johnson was additionally charged with 1st Degree Assault. Three of the women accepted plea offers. On June 14th, 2007 Venice Brown (19), Terrain Dandridge (20), Patreese Johnson (20), and Renata Hill (24) received sentences ranging from 3 1⁄2 to 11 years in prison."
The injustices surrounding the NJ4 serve as important site for opening up discourse around the intersections of race, gender and sexuality. Queer women of color face compounded forces of oppression and vitally need the support of allies across the country. There will be an event in solidarity with the NJ4 this Tuesday June 24th with Angela Davis and Kimma Walker from 7-9pm at the Women’s Building (3543 18th St. San Francisco).
Gay shame is a queer direct action group that has been organizing inSan Francisco
There was a sizable turnout.
It was an excellent welcome to San Francisco
Jason was a lovely computer programmer polygamist from the early 90's:
It was held at the SomArts building on 934 Brannan st:
There were various installations, sculptures and paintings that were hosted by the Queer Cultural center as part of the National Queer arts festival:
The main event of the night included speakers discussing various topics involving queer issues related to the prison industrial complex. Nat Smith talked about Critical Resistance. Miss Major introduced the digital storytelling project. Bea and Xan from the Bay Area New Jersey 4 Solidarity Committee discussed the continuing efforts to support them. Ralowe T. Ampu gave a brief synopsis of a Gay Shame event to protest the Lower Polk Neighbors. To close the performances, Chris and Eric from Gay Shame showed a trailer from their upcoming film "Criminal Queers," a sequel to their first piece "Homotopia". Criminal Queers visualizes a radical queer struggle against the Prison Industrial Complex and toward a world without walls. The event was used as a fundraiser for the TIP [Trans/Gender Variant in Prison] Committee.TIP's mission is to end the discrimination, medical neglect, abuse and violence experienced by transgender and gender variant people, and people with intersex conditions (TGI) in CA prisons.
Critical Resistance is a grassroots organization working toward building an international movement to dismantle the prison-industrial complex. It has existed for nearly ten years and was founded by Angela Davis, Rose Braz, and Ruth Wilson Gilmore among others. From their mission statement: "Critical Resistance seeks to build an international movement to end the Prison Industrial Complex by challenging the belief that caging and controlling people makes us safe." Their vision is to create genuinely safe, healthy communities that respond to harm without relying on prisons and punishment. Their Ten Year anniversary is coming up this fall.
Here is little background on the NJ4 from their website:
"On August 18, 2006, seven young African American lesbians traveled to New York City from their homes in Newark for a regular night out. When walking down the street, a man sexually propositioned one of the women. After refusing to take no for an answer, he assaulted them. The women tried to defend themselves, and a fight broke out. The women were charged with Gang Assault in the 2nd degree, a Class C Felony with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years. Patreese Johnson was additionally charged with 1st Degree Assault. Three of the women accepted plea offers. On June 14th, 2007 Venice Brown (19), Terrain Dandridge (20), Patreese Johnson (20), and Renata Hill (24) received sentences ranging from 3 1⁄2 to 11 years in prison."
The injustices surrounding the NJ4 serve as important site for opening up discourse around the intersections of race, gender and sexuality. Queer women of color face compounded forces of oppression and vitally need the support of allies across the country. There will be an event in solidarity with the NJ4 this Tuesday June 24th with Angela Davis and Kimma Walker from 7-9pm at the Women’s Building (3543 18th St. San Francisco).
Gay shame is a queer direct action group that has been organizing in
There was a sizable turnout.
It was an excellent welcome to San Francisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
