?

Log in


polymexina in theoryishotcrew

:D here's my list.

1. The Methodology of the Oppressed by Chela Sandoval
2. Soul Talk by Gloria Akasha Hull
3. Culture and Truth by Renato Rosaldo
4. Thirdspace by Edward Soja
5. Homo Ludens by Huizinga
6. Tales of Dark Skinned Women by Gargi Bhattacharyya
7. In Other Worlds by Spivak
8. Queer Phenomenology by Sara Ahmed
9. "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway
10. "Situated Knowledges" by Donna Haraway

:braces self:

BRING IT!

Comments

(Well, I suppose it's not exactly homophony, since sexual "orientation" surely derives from some spatial sense of "orientation". But the spatial part has long since drained away, and reasserting it appears entirely unmotivated to me. Can you convince me otherwise?)
<3 I have no idea if I can convince you otherwise! But I'll try to make Ahmed a little less obnoxious. <3

Okay, she's using orientation in this way to be like, "What orients you to a particular body? What cues you to desire what you desire?" So for her the idea of orientation is very much about the externals that direct you to want or feel particular things. She's got this one really great passage where she's thinking about repetitive stress disorder and carpal tunnel syndrome, and then starts talking about heteronormativity as a kind of cultural RSD -- the marks left on the psyche and the body as a result of repeated disciplining into an orientation.
Like if hegemony was a nun with a ruler? It'd whap your hand until you wrote straight as hell and were also heterosexual.


So, being queer and being left handed are the same thing? They have historically been treated similarly. But I think left handedness has finally been accepted and we may have even officially apologized for oppressing it.
I had enough of your left handed comments, you sinister queer.
How about my back-handed compliments?
I don't know, I still see people being teased for being left handed.
writing, speaking and sexuality are so closely linked (e.g. the sound of one's voice is an index of sexual desires)- of course, our nun here is ideally asexual, which makes her phallic ruler all the more terrifying.

Images and the tropes of transference are such good ways of talking about theory.

Is "What orients you to a particular body?" just pure metaphor? Why not say "what attracts you to a particular body?"? Unless I'm missing something, it's the same point, with more natural language.

The idea about hetenormativity is interesting. Is it supposed to afflict everyone, or just queer people? That is, suppose someone is unambiguously inclined to heterosexuality, a Kinsey scale absolute 0. Has that person still suffered psychic marks on account of cultural heteronormativity?
She's using orient because she's talking a lot about directionality, location, and place-making. So it's not just about attraction as in OMG BOOBS or whatever... it's also about, say, lingerie as a signifier of sexy times. The accessories of sex/desire, say, or the accoutrement.

She'd say that that's why heteronormativity is so toxic. You can be oriented towards heterosexuality but then be disciplined into heteronormativity.
You might want to clarify the distinction you are working with between x-sexuality and x-normativity. I work in an area (ancient world) that was highly normative, but where heterosexuality was somewhat odd; I have little difficulty with the distinction between "sex" and "norms," it might be less clear to everyone.

(here I use heterosexuality to describe a part social system where the biological sex (gender) of the desirer and the desired object is the central important factor. A phenomenon of the modern world)
Also: she is using Said's point about the Orient and its conquest being sexualized for Westerners as a jumping off into some of her reflections on cultural identity.
Have you read any of the Said detractors? I am about to embark on some of that for a project. Also, just read a book on responses to Oliver Stone's Alexander and one of the major critiques was of his harem scene which historians have known for decades that this sexualized, "mysterious" view of the Persian harem is inaccurate (Stone himself admits in a response that it was a poor choice to film it that way). The notion of sacred prostitution in Babylon was also dispelled many years ago now. The image of the sexualized east has its roots primarily in Victorian culture with paintings like those of Jerome etc. and we have all been reluctant to let such views go. I am wondering how Ahemd fits in here? And how is she doing anything that ancient historians (especially intellectual historians who talk about how historians write about history) haven't been doing already for decades?

Or, perhaps we might incorporate the queer element by thinking of the scene from Lawrence of Arabia wherein Lawrence is taken prisoner by the Ottoman Turks and raped by soldiers. They are, I think. part of the same phenomena (and, of course, the whole movie is a praise of British colonialism and a critique of the middle eastern peoples to be able to self-govern). Same idea, though.

Edited at 2010-07-13 01:54 pm (UTC)
What project are you working on?

I don't know if Suleri would count as a detractor, but one of the major shifts she's offering to Said's work is thinking about the agency of the colonized. For Said, colonization and orientalizing HAPPENS TO the the colonized subject. The same, I think for Fanon and Cesaire. Suleri argues in the Rhetoric of English India that it's important to think about the agency and complicity of the native elite in maintaining colonial governments. Lata Mani in Contentious Traditions is arguing something similar, except in regards to sati and marriage traditions. What's important about this shift is that for Said power travels down. For Suleri and Mani, power is multidirectional and not stable, something they're getting from Foucault.

I have to run for the bus, but will comment later with more on Ahmed. :D
I'm actually a Kinsey 0. Or at least I have been told this by every single person. I would say surely I have suffered psychic marks on account of heteronormativity.
Attracts is also a metaphor but one that shifts the point of focus. Orientation is an internal push whereas attraction denotes an external pull. One only seems more "natural" based on the intuition, or "feelings" of one as a native speaker within a present context. But that doesn't make it less metaphorical. The use of orient, however, is the more appropriate metaphor here because of the spatial as well as the fact that "oriens" from which the word derives is the cardinal directional term for the east. The metaphor thus does double duty here and the "orientalism" and spatial notion of orient as an internal push are evident and appropriate.
(Haha I'm tempted to answer your truth question by doing a Dark Tower reference. More soon!)
Please do! We have already discovered the Highlander Theory of Truth (there can be only ONE!).
:D

My Understanding of the Truth by Jake Chambers
http://19-99.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-understanding-of-truth-by-jake.html

In conclusion: everything Stephen King wrote ever is the truth.

Edited at 2010-07-13 02:04 pm (UTC)