Andrew's Wiki
Theory Vs Theory Reading Notes

pg 820, Why must non-reproductive eros be tied with homosexual practice? Doesn’t S/M have a place in this discussion? Other forms of fetish practice? The valorization of gay identity is interesting, but I’ve always understood queer theory to be a broader practice (and, therefore, this “anti-social thesis” to be much stronger).
pg. 820-1, I agree with Caserio’s conclusion. A straight-gay split (or even a “queer”-”normal” split) does not adequetely evoke this problematic. Rather, it seems what is at stack, here, is the role of the family itself. Edelman’s connection to religion becomes important, at this juncture. I think what is actually going on is a struggle over the representation of the future as repetition or as possibility. This struggle is not limited by any sort of binary “split,” but rather calls into question our beliefs in a secular notion of future progress or a divine notion of salvation history.
pg. 821, Edelman’s definition of the “futurch”
pg. 821, Edelman’s rejection of utopian thought may be important to consider, wrt your own paper.
pg. 822, What is Edelman actually advocating here? If the purpose of negative queer theory is to resist the futurch, then what will queer theory ever accomplish, in terms of resisting anti-queer violence?

Created on June 23, 2008 07:43:58 by Escha Ton ()