Queering Paradigms III, SUNY Oneonta, 7-9th April 2011

Liz Morrish, Nottingham Trent University, U.K. reports on the Queering Paradigms 3 (QP3) conference, successful hosted by SUNY Oneonta, USA. This was the third in the Queering Paradigms series, and it was an excellent international conference which attracted leading researchers in the field as well as many inspiring emerging scholars.

As the title suggests, this conference was designed to bring together scholars from such disparate fields as: theology, public health, cultural studies, law, linguistics, ethnic studies, anthropology, history, philosophy, psychology, neurobiology and performance studies. Indeed, such is the relevance and embrace of queer theory that all these areas offered up paradigms to be queered.

Organisers Professor Kathleen O’Mara and Dr Betty Wambui of SUNY Oneonta took a broad definition of ‘queer’ from Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's (1993: 7) in her essay “Queer and Now: … 'queer' can refer to: the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when constituent elements of anyone's gender, of anyone's sexuality aren't made (or can't be made) to signify monolithically”. 'Queer' is therefore conceptualized as querying and challenging heteronormativity (or homonormativity) while recognizing that the term does not resonate globally as it emerged from Western experience.

That definition was well demonstrated by the three plenary events. Dr Carlos Ulises Decena from Rutgers University gave the first plenary – ‘Code Swishing’ which called for a widening of linguistic norms tolerated within Latino gay male culture. Gay men from a Dominican culture can be unforgiving in their regulation of each other’s gay-signifying language use, he argued. Professor William Leap of American University gave a powerful lecture outlining Queer Linguistics as an International Project. As queer theory tell us, it is important not to import western categories into other cultures. Queer, we must recall, has no fixed assumptions, and identities emerge in context. Leap made an impassioned defense of queer linguistics and its appropriate objects of study. He provided perhaps the best line of the conference – in a retort to a British scholar who dismissed the study of language and sexual identity with the query, ‘What next, we study the language of gas-mask fetishists?’- Leap argued that the project of queer linguistics was precisely that, to make the world safe for the study of the language of gas-mask fetishists.

The third plenary was a panel which featured three activists: Ignacio Rivera, Victor/Viola Moncar & Charles Gueboguo, representing in sequence, Queers for Economic Justice (USA), BBUD, Bro2Bro in Unity & Diversity (Ghana) and Queer African Youth Network (Cameroon). It was fascinating and illuminating to hear the different approaches they took and difficulties they faced in their activism and outreach to same-sex desiring people in their respective cultural contexts. Talking with the students who attended, I know this was a rich learning experience for them.

The QP series of conferences are informed and structured by an ethic initiated by their founder, Burkhard Scherer, Reader in Theology, Canterbury Christchurch University, U.K, and a specialist in sexuality within Buddhism. He has sought to create an intellectual space which is not viciously competitive and full of academic stars, but genial and supportive so that emerging scholars feel accepted. The conferences aim to work as an extended workshop in which most panel sessions are available to all attending. The SUNY Oneonta team certainly operated within this spirit. In addition, Dr Kathleen O’Mara and Dr Betty Wambui ensured that every need was met: accommodation, transportation, entertainment and catering, which meant that participants stayed together, and this made talking and exchanging views much more likely. The operation was enhanced by an excellent website and cheerful, competent student volunteers from Students for Global Education, Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Latino Studies classes. Participants were also assisted with great care by Morris Hall staff and campus caterers.

For those of us who are queer (in whatever dimension), to step into a queer oasis offers a kind of mental and physical ease rarely attained in other contexts. But sometimes worlds collide…. there we all were, hanging out in Le Café downstairs in Morris Hall. Next door in the Otsego Grille was a kid’s baseball camp, with visiting parents. It was truly hilarious to watch the consternation of some of the latter, as they wandered through queer space on their way to the terrace, or found Burkhard in his pink leggings in the women’s bathroom. It reminded me of a piece by Sara Ahmed, on universalizing whiteness: “But of course whiteness is only invisible for those who inhabit it. For those who don’t, it is hard not to see whiteness; it even seems everywhere.” The same could be said for heterosexuality – it is everywhere, and in turn, the temporary appropriation of queer space merely underscores that difference.

I have to make one disappointing observation. I would have expected such a weighty international conference to feature prominently on the college website. However, it appears that the remarkable impact of QP3 was barely recognized by its host institution. There was no visible publicity on the website, and despite drafting a press release, the organizers and supporters were unable to persuade the college publicity officer to release this to the local media. As a result, there was little participation at the panels from the local community. I felt SUNY Oneonta had missed a valuable opportunity to reach out to the local LGBTQ community. This stands in contrast to the previous host universities (Canterbury Christchurch, UK and QUT, Australia), which were considerably more affirming of the presence of QP1 and QP2 respectively.

As I make a study of queer invisibility in university diversity statements, this is perhaps why the obscuring of QP3 has irked me. Even more ironically, as I read SUNY Oneonta’s Vision and Values, prominently accessible from the college website, those very values are exactly what was embodied in the conference themes.

• Engaging students in exceptional learning experiences, within and beyond the classroom;
• Nurturing the development of individuals who contribute to local and global communities;
• Building an increasingly diverse, welcoming, and inclusive campus community.

When excellence is overlooked, despite resonating with the proclaimed mission of an institution, it suggests an intentional act. Many scholars at the conference would be aware of another SUNY college’s history of difficulties around issues of sexuality in the public sphere, and we would have hoped, in the intervening 15 years, that these had been overcome. However, SUNY Oneonta’s silence must be read as shame – a stance which is neither honorable nor in keeping with its inclusive pose.

To claim a commitment to diversity and inclusion should mean more than merely auditing its presence on an Equal Opportunities monitoring form. To observe and record difference categorically requires very little in the form of institutional transformation. As Bendix-Peterson and Davies (2010) point out, being open to difference, and encouraging students and faculty to realize difference (as in the sense of becoming), is a very different matter. Maybe SUNY Oneonta needs to queer its own paradigms before it can claim to embrace diversity.

References

Ahmed, Sara. 2004. Declarations of Whiteness: The Non-Performativity of Anti-Racism. Borderlands (e-journal). 3.2. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm

Bendix-Peterson, E and Davies, B. 2010. In/Difference in the neoliberalised university. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences. 3.2. 92-109.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 1993. Tendencies. Duke University Press.

Feeling Backward (why queer theory still matters)

I recently received a reader’s report for a book proposal in which the anonymous reviewer refers to queer theory as being ‘mid 1990s’ and ‘once cutting edge’. I was struck by the notion that queer theory was over, faddish and outdated and my first response to this was that queer theory will be over when homophobia, the closet, and so on is also over. In order to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of queer theory I would like to introduce a few ideas from a recent ‘queer theory’ book that also helped me make sense of pleasures that might be construed as wholly negative. The question then is why is Brokeback Mountain pleasurable when it also makes me feel bad?

In Heather Love's Feeling Backward: Loss and the Politics of Queer History (Harvard University Press, 2007) she explains why hurtful, melancholic and depressing experiences constitute contemporary queer identity and thus need to be acknowledged, incorporated and negotiated since ‘many of these unlikely feelings are closely tied to the realities of queer experience past and present.’ (147) In this respect, Brokeback Mountain is a text that has a backward logic. It uses the past to speak to the present as it narrates a depressing story of historical injury and bad feeling in order to connect to a contemporary audience who may feel that they are still negotiating or finding it difficult to dispel a shameful and homophobic past – homosexuality is problematic! Love continues:

'Backwardness means many things here; shyness, ambivalence, failure, melancholia, loneliness, regression, victimhood, heartbreak, antimodernism, immaturity, self-hatred, despair, shame. I describe backwardness both as queer historical structure of feeling and as a model for queer historiography.' (146)

Many of the terms in Love’s quote may describe the characters and their narrative situations in Brokeback Mountain, as well as the spectator’s response to the film. It is important that the film does provoke negative and bad feeling. It is not a joyous experience; rather it is a film that leaves one feeling hurt and emotionally devastated in its backward turn. Yet, this is somehow what is rewarding about the film also. Brokeback Mountain’s stress on negative and depressive histories of the homosexual past help to constitute contemporary gay and lesbian identity and subjectivity since ‘the experience of queer historical subjects is not a safe distance from contemporary experience; rather, their social marginality and abjection mirror our own.’ (32)


The backward feeling and the pathos in the film articulate a refusal to see progress in the way it is often imagined by gay pride discourses. Brokeback Mountain demands us to accept that homosexuality is still impossible for many, that it is still permeated by tragedy and melancholia, and that it has a history that is still unresolved and needful of being properly negotiated in the present. Love’s work helps to unlock the process of understanding negative pleasures in political terms especially in relation to films like Brokeback Mountain. The film reminds queers that their modern subjectivity is constituted by a painful, closeted, homophobic history and that feeling backward and feeling bad are also important affective dimensions of queer subjectivity in the present.

(image: screen grab; permissions)

Remembering Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1950-2009)

Two brilliant women sadly passed away in April after long battles with cancer. The legendary small screen actress Bea Arthur (1922-2009), whose obituary was of course well publicized, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1950-2009), the scholar and activist who revolutionised gay and lesbian studies. Gary Needham and Liz Morrish both pay their tributes to Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick.

It’s now significant that I remember reading Sedgwick’s A Dialogue on Love (1999) while looking after the grandmother who raised me and who was fading away from (the then unknown) rapid metastasis from breast cancer. I never thought of that affective link between these two influential figures in my life until now. I came to Eve Sedgwick and queer theory on my own in my first year as a postgraduate in Glasgow (in 2000) since it was something that was never taught to me so I never knew what to expect from it, yet, I knew that I ought to start exploring it. Well, I can honestly say queer theory transformed my academic life and purpose, namely the relationship between my identity and what was really the point of being an academic in the first place; a real transformation where film studies (my discipline) was usurped by queer and LGBT studies. I’d probably be writing histories of Italian cinema and obscure movies (not that they aren’t important things to write about) if it wasn’t for the inspiration and insight that I owe to Eve Sedgwick and her books Between Men (1985), Epistemology of the Closet (1990), Tendencies (1993), and Touching Feeling (2003). I’m sure we all secretly have our favourite scholars but Eve was different in that she never seemed to be writing from the measured distance of most scholarship. When she wrote, especially in Tendencies, you got the feeling that a good friend was telling you this stuff. There was something about Eve’s writing that felt more like an act of sharing and the joy of her writing and thinking was not only that it was smart, in fact really smart, but that it was heartfelt and honest. So when I read that on the 12th of April Eve had passed away from the same thing as my grandmother I was deeply saddened. Even though I’ve never met Eve Sedgwick, the experience was as if a friend had somehow passed away; that’s the kind of effect that Eve’s writing has on you. I can honestly say that I wouldn’t be the scholar I am without Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. (Gary)

Eve Sedgwick was for me the Martina Navratilova of queer theory, dominating all over the place and queering the disciplines, but mystifyingly, she was not quite entirely queer herself. She leaves a husband of some 40 years. Well, that’s how the straight world might see her, but then Sedgwick’s entire project was to disrupt our expectations and conventional readings, even of the category queer. Perhaps the work which shocked the most was an essay “Jane Austen and the masturbating girl” (1989) which challenges the traditional interpretation of the behaviour of Austen’s characters. Sedgwick was rapidly elevated to queer diva status even as she was reviled by the Right in the US during the ‘culture wars’ of the 1990s. This was a time of divided campuses, when individuals were obliged to take sides. Just admitting to having read Epistemology of the Closet or Tendencies marked you as a queer radical committed to the downfall of Western civilization. Stanley Fish opened up space for alternative literary approaches at Duke and recruited Sedgwick, and she soon gathered around her a group of young thinkers and together they carried queer theory forward to its accepted position in critical theory today. (Liz)

(photo credit: David Shankbone, permissions)

Work in Progress Papers: Diva Debts

Gary Needham will be presenting a paper entitled 'Diva Debts: The "Value" of Queerness in I Seen Beyonce at Burger King'.

This work in progress paper examines the videos of queer hip-hop artist Cazwell in order to demonstrate the ongoing relevance and diversification of queer theory. The value of queerness here is in a critique of capital’s reification of homonormativity yet, this effect also relates assimilative identities to the question of value in terms of capital. The outsider Cazwell is interesting because he also demarcates queer and homonormative forms of music culture through his mocking of Beyonce and the unquestioned politics of diva worship and the theme of diva debt.

What underpins this work is a larger interest in how queer theory can make sense of capital’s relationship to homonormativity, especially the potential for queerness and queer cultural production to act as a disorganising process that takes to task the economic factors that produce more than willing homonormative cultures and subjects.

The paper takes place on Wednesday March 18, 12.00-1.00pm in GEE219, Clifton Campus, NTU.
(Photo credit: Osei Thompson. Permissions.)

Swimming in Queer Theory - Judith Halberstam@Warwick (Part 2)

Following the queer theory workshop and lunch (Part 1), Liz Morrish and Gary Needham attended a formal presentation by Judith Halberstam on the subject of the cut and collage in queer/feminist art.

This paper followed of from some of the issues and artists previously discussed in Halberstam’s In a Queer Time and Place (2005). Halberstam offered an analysis of several feminist/queer artists including Kara Walker and Yoko Ono. What interested Halberstam was the way in which collage, re-inscription and cutting are central devices in these artists’ practice. What drew Halberstam to cutting and collage is the way in which the practice re-organizes meaning through juxtapositions and absences which could be thought of as queer. Halberstam urged us to consider through various works the moments when subjects become illegible thus unreadable, unknowable, and resistant, subjects who refuse to cohere and subject who embrace passivity as a form of agency. Gary thinks some of this connects quite well with some earlier 1990s queer work in photography (namely Della Grace Volcano and Catherine Opie) in which the subject’s gender becomes illegible and unreadable and includes in the canon images of Judith/Jack Halberstam. The conclusion drawn from Halberstam’s presentation also returned us to the queer theory workshop from earlier that morning, in that, Halberstam asked the audience to consider the possibility of embracing negativity and passivity as viable political acts of resistance for queers. The larger framing of Halberstam’s new work in queer theory would seem to suggests that queerness is (and should be) “the problem of the subject itself”.
(photo credit: Arbitrary.Marks/Colleen Keating)

Swimming in Queer Theory - Judith Halberstam@Warwick (Part 1)

Liz Morrish and Gary Needham participated in a day of queer theory events on the 16th February organised by Cath Lambert and led by Judith Halberstam; these included a queer theory workshop, lunch, and a formal paper on queer and feminist art.

The morning session workshop was on trends in queer theory in which Judith Halberstam identified several new avenues of exploration that she saw as the vanguard in recent queer scholarship. The workshop was structured around three readings that the participants (about 20 of us) had been given in advance. These were the introductory chapters to Lee Edelman’s No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (2004), Rod Ferguson’s Aberrations in Black: Towards a Queer of Color Critique (2004), and Heather Love’s Feeling Backward: Loss and the Politics of Queer Theory (2007). Usefully, Halberstam effortlessly teased out the main arguments from each of these introductions in order to pose much broader questions about the direction queer theory might be heading over the next few years. We feel they are worth summarising here.

Edelman’s No Future is by now a well-rehearsed critique of the normative effects of temporality that reveals how the figure of the child functions as the lynchpin of a future defined solely in reproductive and familial terms. Queerness occupies the side of those ‘not fighting for the children’ thus queers are defined as future-negating. Ferguson’s Aberrations in Black proposes critique of US sociology that defines as aberrant everything which lies outside of the white family. Queer theory, then, must acknowledge its genealogy and affiliation with women of color feminism in order to develop a queer of color analysis. Ferguson’s work not only racializes queer theory’s implicit whiteness but also seeks to undo the rigid disciplinarity that has often kept the study of race and sexuality separate from one another. Finally, Heather Love’s Feeling Backward suggests that is too early for queers to turn away from the shame, and recommends we engage in a ‘backward looking’ as a way to investigate the shame which is part of our history and identity. Even in an era that celebrates gay pride, there are those traces – structures of feeling – that leave an indelible trace of shame. Shame thus “lives on in pride” despite attempts to appropriate it as a reverse discourse.

Judith Halberstam prompted us into group discussion in order to think about how the future of queer theory (paradoxically based on concepts of backwardness and negativity). The questions that came out of these complex arguments were to get us thinking about how we (as queers) might embrace a negative impulse in directly political terms as a form of resistance to the prevailing social order. Halberstam also asked could we find a way out of melancholia, shame and negativity – and what are the political alternatives and what are the other legacies we can activate? How can we imagine a queer future in the absence of ‘the Child’? Can we also speak of a queer affectivity? If the goals of queer theory have been to shatter, resist, disrupt - what other projects can we claim for queer theory?

While the workshop did raise more questions than it could possible answer it proved a useful overview of some recent trends in queer theory and the kinds of questions we need to ask ourselves especially if we are to maintain queer theory as a distinctly political and relevant form of critique and analysis.

Liz found Judith Halberstam terrific and likewise Gary was impressed by the effortlessness with which she brought together these three distinct debates in queer theory. Unlike so many queer theory divas, Judith was approachable, unselfconscious, interested and extremely skilled at managing a discussion with participants at different levels of understanding. Over lunch Liz discovered, much to her delight, that Judith was a major swim-head with an obsession about water that rivalled her own. Given Liz’s readings of Halberstam’s Female Masculinity and Drag King Book not to mention the various articles on butchness, FTM and transgender – indeed, given Liz’s reading of Judith super-cool masculine physical self-presentation – Liz was intrigued at the idea of negotiating a pool with Judith (what swim attire would she wear?) and of course the women’s locker room. Cursing herself for not bringing her cozzie, Liz realised she wasn’t going to find out experientially, so she asked Judith instead. They discussed the practices, paradoxes, concealments and confoundings of gender in the swimming environment. Fascinating stuff. What a duo and what a challenge to gender normativity. Liz will always regret not swimming with Judith Halberstam. And off Judith went to turn heads in the Warwick pool leaving Liz to debate Warwick’s campus cuisine with Gary.
(photo credit: Arbitrary.Marks/Colleen Keating)