#but you can't pretend that your universe has a certain kind of logic and then selectively ignore it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

miseriathome · 6 years

Note

Nah, queer theory is very much actively pushed by academics, who are people with real power over others - maybe not as much as some other category of people, but don't try and pretend that tenured faculty are weak and powerless outsiders. Besides that ... I can't dissuade you from your choice of ideology, but ime it was made very clear that "queer" was Not For Me, and I'm ostensibly one of those multiply-marginalized people who were supposed to find it liberatory.

[ presumably the same anon as this one ]

If your life experience doesn’t lead you to feel swayed by the really cool work that queer theorists are doing, then… whatever. I don’t feel particularly swayed by theoretical physics. But as somebody who is multiply-marginalized (aren’t we all?) who actually loves social theory, I’m still going to use my own blog as a platform to talk about it:

I don’t think you understand how broad the field of sociology is. Tenured sociology professors teach a whole broad range of topics. You know what tenured professors’ sociology classes really are? History, historical theory (pure theory, no applications), psychology, anthropology, economics, a lot more history, political science, and methodology courses. Things I’ve learned from tenured sociology professors: the history of capitalism as it developed from feudalism; Marx/Weber/Durkheim (which were beaten to death in every. single. course) ; the history of labor unions; pseudopsychology; a lot of statistics about population distributions based on things like age and sex; ethnographies about big industries; the history of factories; critical race/class/gender theory in the abstract; some weird shit about the function of sports in society, fuck if I know; the American Dream across time; modern cultural differences around the globe; political processes for passing legislation; fucking pussy hats, everyone couldn’t stop talking about the goddamn pussy hats; classifications of professions; lots of American history.

Social theory, economics, psychology, anthropology, political science, etc all are valid approaches to sociology. But being a tenured professor means being stuck in a niche all your life, never bothering to reach out of your own area of expertise. And you know what kinds of people have had a much more difficult time entering the present day class of tenured professors? People of color, disabled folks, queer people. You know, people who like queer theory. And research about minority issues doesn’t get funded as much as broader, “more applicable” research does., which makes it harder to enter academic fields and research positions if that’s your specialty.

You have to realize that people who are currently tenured professors have followed a career path to get there over the past 10+ years (if they’re even a newly tenured professor), and that’s in light of the changing political climate of that time which–as you go backwards to their early college days–would get more and more socially conservative, making it harder to have had that career path. Then there’s the fact that in a given sociology department at any university, there’s only so many professors that can specialize in identity politics, narrowing the potential for university-level teaching positions even further. Finally, a lot of queer theorists aren’t… even… sociologists? Like I said before, queer theorists are ordinary people who write about their lives and experiences, who sometimes come from other backgrounds like political science/anthropology/human rights and then sort of get swallowed into academic sociological queer theory. So you don’t have to have any specific credentials to write cornerstone pieces of queer literature, but you do have to have them to teach in a university, and thus I don’t think it’s very fair to assume that queer theorists are entering universities in hoards to push their queer agenda. (Also, colleges don’t really want to hire people who are too ~radical~ because of controversy–even liberal colleges.)

Or, if you’re trying to imply that the few professors who do teach queer theory are intentionally pushing it as much as possible… it’s probably because it’s such a relatively new, unexplored, and underrated area that deserves attention? I don’t see how gender/sexuality professors are any different in that respect than every other professor who gets super enthusiastic about their own research.

The people I know who teach queer theory are grad students, aka they aren’t tenured?? I mean I’ll give you some benefit of the doubt if you mean women’s gender/sexuality studies professors, since my avenue is sociology, but even then. And you totally can’t act like grad students have power, given how poor and exploited they are and how easily they can be dismissed for toeing a line at their institution.

I legitimately do not think professors are people with any significant amount of power over others–especially not broad social power a a class. Like, there is soooooooo much social theory that could go into breaking down this ask. I literally just pulled up my class notes on the social distinction of professions. It’s the nature of the public to try to deprofessionalize certain skills and knowledge bases, and university professors are frequently attacked in this regard.

I also established already that most queer theorists aren’t actually people who have fulfilled an academically-acceptable career in queer theory. Faculty are the people who synthesize documents and structure syllibi around them in order to teach them effectively. The people who are “pushing” queer theory (still unfortunate rhetoric with queerphobic implications) are queer people. Non-professor queer people. Many of whom are multiply-marginalized and find writing about their lives liberatory. You’re getting uncomfortably close to “marginalized people actually have tone of power” conspiracy logic. It’s a lot simpler than all of that. Professor teach queer theory because a good education requires a broad representation of multiple sides, and queer theory is just another lens, just like neocolonialism, neoliberalism, neo-Marxism, and critical race/class/gender theory are. Like, my social theory textbook has one section about queer theory (which is literally only about Judith Butler, actually) which is only one part of one chapter on postmodernism.

But like… aside all of that, most theory–except maybe music theory, because fuck that shit–is descriptive. Theory is developed through observations and life experiences and quantitative/ethnographic research. If you read prominent works within queer theory, they’re either what are essentially memoirs/opinion pieces, argumentative essays that build off the work on philosophy-style theorists, or published, peer-reviewed studies. And considering the fact that those things are present in all branches of sociological theory, I don’t think you can be against that, either.

I definitely gave myself a headache trying to condense all of the things I’m trying to think of, and I’ve been chipping away at this ask for multiple hours. The bigger fact is that one person sending me super short, super vague anons is not a good start to a productive and meaningful conversation, because I’m just grasping at straws trying to make inferences about what’s really being conveyed. This might be an inadequate job but it’s a starting point and is hopefully broad enough that it hits on some meaningful points.

Also, anybody who doesn’t find the word queer liberatory but still calls themselves queer should really ask themselves why they want to be called queer in the first place when it’s a choice.

#anon #ask #queer theory #reply #I...?#long post #academia

4 notes · View notes

ed-hale · 6 years

Text

Talking to a friend last night about how split/fractured the U.S. is at this point in time, how genuinely divisive and disturbing it's become for many of us. Uncomfortable. For both sides. (Especially for those of us who are Independents I would add...). He made several very intriguing comments. (Mind you he's more "left" than most Democrats. So he's no democrat. And I'm obviously not that. I lean both right and left, depending on what we're talking about. But we're okay with that. We don't let it come between us.) We were discussing the obvious mistake in judgement (besides a heinous disregard for basic ethics) that the democratic party made, and the subsequent harm this mistake has inflicted on its party members (AND everyone else in America) by not allowing their party to naturally go in the direction it wanted to, i.e. in support of an outsider, in their case Bernie Sanders, and instead just insisted that their candidate be Hilary Clinton, despite what their members were seeming to call for. Michael Moore called it weeks before the election. Trump would win. Truth be told my opinion is that Trump would have won against Bernie too. BUT many Americans would at least still be part of the system. They'd vote. They'd care. After the shenanigans (that's a very kind label for the crimes and corruption we witnessed) that the democratic party pulled to pretend Hilary was "the legitimate candidate", millions of people, especially the young, went back to their old MO -- "screw both of those parties, they both suck, screw this whole system. I'm out." And of course, many just didn't bother to vote. They stopped caring. But now here we are. Half the people happy with the outcome. And half the people very unhappy. Just like in the Obama years. Totally split. Which has compelled me to start thinking the same thought I think whenever I contemplate the "civil war" or as some people call it "Lincoln's war of aggression". (Their label.... Let's not digress to that yet. There'll be time for it later.) If people in red states are really happy with how things are and the direction they claim to want to go in, why not let them? And why not let blue staters go in the direction THEY want to go? Loads of people are anti-abortion. I get it. I'm pro-life myself. But also pro-choice. Hell, I'll even admit that abortion is murder in my humble opinion. But I just can't bring myself to believe that I have the right to dictate what another person should or shouldn't do in/with their own life. I believe that's a human right. So in that, I am liberal. I get it. It's upsetting to some. Makes sense to others. And frankly I'm okay with that. I'm also okay if half the population of the country wants to ban abortion. Totally fine with it. That should be their choice. Their decision. As my friend said last night, "If the federal government banned abortion tomorrow through all this supreme court stuff about to go down, ten states would hold emergency sessions overnight and pass a law to legalize abortion in their states. That's how it works. So it shouldn't even be an issue." He believes democrats have gotten lost in ideologies that distract them from real issues. He's entitled to his opinion. Just as democrats are. And he's right about abortion. Just like marijuana or gay marriage, abortion will become legal again in at least ten states overnight. Without question. So let's not quibble over it. Truth is, America IS split. Ideologically morally politically split. And it has been for a long time. What many don't quite understand about the ambassador is that I felt bad for republicans during the Obama years. Mind you, I was both a fan of certain aspects of the man -- he was a great orator, patient and thoughtful in his decision making and more liberally minded than the alternative, but I was also NOT a fan of many aspects of him and his agenda. (That's just me and it's not important.) The point is, oftentimes I personally felt empathy for republicans during Obama's years in office because I felt like the country was being pushed too far progressive too quickly for the comfort of many folks who leaned "conservative". And one could feel their pain. It was disquieting and upsetting for them. It wasn't the "America" they were accustomed to. Now I know that a lot of my friends who are democrat would immediately respond "too bad". Which is hilarious. Because that's just what republicans are saying to democrats NOW. But as my friend said last night, "You can't force people to acquiesce to your position. All you can do is make a convincing argument and hope they eventually evolve to your point of view." Totally agree. America was forcing an extremely progressive agenda on a large portion of the population and it was doing so quickly. Hence Trump. Safety. Comfort. Back to "normal" for them. Life feels good again. I get it. I really do. So why not let's just face facts and get real AND do something about this. Rather than all the arguing. We live in TWO Americas now. Maybe we always have. We may be united in our desire to be protected by our military against foreign invasion. And we both want to use the U.S. dollar as our primary currency. And heck most of us probably would all want to stay a democratic republic and primarily capitalist. (My aforementioned friend is the exception. He doesn't like capitalism. And i not only respect his viewpoint, but I can understand it to a certain degree.) But most of us can probably all agree that we are UNITED on those issues. Everything else, we're split. Totally completely split. No wiggle room. So why don't we just make it official and split? Many people may not readily remember that we split India up into two countries, a Hindu one and a Muslim one. It's called Pakistan. It's possible. It's doable. Yes geographically it will pose a few challenges. For the most part, those of who tend to lean more blue live on the coasts. WA to CA and MA down to VA, with a few blue states in the middle, SOMEtimes... Not only do we know WHO we are, we know what we want and what we don't want. And it's about time we stopped trying to convince each other that WE are right and YOU are wrong, and instead just make the split. Two countries. Dictated democratically by the people who LIVE in those countries. Think about it for a minute. Don't shut down. Red staters will ban abortion in their country. And they'll get NO argument or fuss from blue staters. Let them do it. Perhaps they'll close their borders off to immigrants of all shapes and sizes for a while. Let them. We have a labor shortage in America right now. (Maybe they don't get that? But who cares? That's the point. We need to stop trying to convince each other that the other side is "right".) So the blue states will take the immigrants. Red staters want to keep the healthcare system how it is. In fact they want to roll it back to "how it used to be before Obama messed it up". Cool. Blue staters want universal health care. They consider it a basic human right. Who are we to try to convince red staters they're wrong? Let them have monopolistic for-profit companies running their healthcare system and bankrupting them everytime they get sick. Seriously. Just let them. And blue states will switch to a single payer universal healthcare system. Consider "the welfare state" collection of issues. That's a BIG one. But it doesn't have to be. Imagine we just let the red states get rid of all the social welfare programs they want to in "their country". Welfare, gone. Food stamps, gone. Medicare and Medicaid probably reduced or minimized. Cool. We'll keep it in the blue state country. And from what we can tell, a lot of the wealthiest people in blue states don't mind paying a little more in taxes in order to secure a more humane safety net for their neighbors. So yay for them. Let them stay in blue state country. And if they don't like it, they can always move to red state country. They're rich. They can afford it. In the case of religion and religious imagery, let's face it, red staters have been getting the short end of the stick on these issues for years. They're being forced to take down religious symbols in their own hometowns. Forced to not be allowed to pray in their own schools. That just doesn't seem fair. I myself practice a religion. But I just happen to believe in religious freedom AND separation of church and state, and because I recognize that a lot of blue staters are Atheists and though they don't know it, that too is a religion, I don't mind their banning religion from most public things and from government. It makes sense from a strategic logical point of view. For blue staters. Maybe just not for red staters... As long as they let me keep my church and practice freely, I'm cool. And truth be told most atheists and blue staters aren't trying to rip down churches. But do they go too far sometimes? Yes, in my opinion, for the comfort of many red staters they do. So let the red state nation be rid of atheist liberals. We'll deal with them in blue state country. We don't mind. We'll take them. And red states can have whole public schools or towns even named after Jesus or Mary or Christ if they want to. LET THEM. It's their country. Dig? Now, we could go on and on. And what's interesting is that a lot of people are probably reading this and thinking that THEIR country sounds AWESOME. The country they most align with that is... And that's the point. Their country WILL BE awesome. For THEM. No more arguing on social media. No more protests and marches and screaming and shouting in the media 24/7. No more insane tweets from the president. Hell, most blue staters won't even read tweets from the red state president. And why should they? He's not their president. They'll read tweets from their own president. And let the red staters consider FOX News an actual media outlet. As outlandish as that may sound to some, it's their sovereign right as a nation. Just as it is the right of blue staters to consider the New York Times a media outlet (not that I'm equating one with the other. But many red staters do.... Let them.) Of course the blue state country needs to grow the hell up and recognize that MSNBC is NOT a media outlet. Call it what it is, political propaganda or entertainment. But that ain't objective journalism. Chances are it will be easy to get most blue staters to acknowledge that if they got FOX News the hell off of their TV -- except for entertainment purposes, like say you want to just chill and have a laugh after a long day at work. FOX News can be hilarious at times. It's perfect for that. But it just won't be called "news". More like the Stephen Colbert show. It's satire. It's funny. So let's get to the heart of the matter. The REAL heart of the matter. The red states will never allow the blue states to create their own country. And if they were smart, they wouldn't. Because the majority of the economic power of the U.S. presently is in blue states. The big dogs are all in blue state nation. Sound familiar? Yep. Now we're back to "Lincoln's War of Aggression" due to fear of economic collapse, where he ordered the entire force and might of U.S. military to attack the Southern States and force them to NOT secede. Even though they wanted to. Now I'm no Southerner. Nor a confederacy lover. Honestly the site of that flag creeps me out. But I respect other people's rights. And state sovereignty. And if southern states wanted to keep on truckin as they were and leave the Union to do so, so be it. The North was just too scared of what would become of them without the economic powerhouse that the South was at that time. That's the cold hard truth of it. And I just bet that the same exact people who wanted to secede 150 years ago would be demanding that president Trump NOT allow the blue states to secede and start their own country NOW. Think about it for a second. Regardless of which party you tend to side with. Will red staters really allow WA, CA, NY, NJ, CT, VT, NH etc start their own country and separate from the U.S.? Probably not. But not because they don't like the idea... Hell they'll love the idea once they get how awesome their country is going to be. Peace at last. Peace at last. But what would they do economically? Where's THEIR Wall Street? Where's THEIR Amazon and Microsoft and Intel and Apple and Google and Facebook and Twitter etc? That's the real issue, just as it was 150 years ago. Well, I'll tell you what they'd do. First off, a lot of republicans are smart and wealthy people who work on Wall Street. So they're not going to be without brains. Despite what snobby democrats think or say. Red State Nation can either start their own big tech companies. OR the blue state nation can easily draft up a bilateral free trade deal with the red state nation. Trump loves bilateral trade deals. He'll have a field day. Of course, he'll have to move. New York is just about as true blue liberal as they come. (But wasn't Trump a democrat for most of his adult life? Oh yeah, but sssshhhhhh. We pretend that didn't happen. I'm joking of course. Most know I sincerely believe that president Trump has noble intentions for America, is one hell of a hard working machine AND he's WINNING. Big time winning on a lot of fronts. I may not happen to agree with every direction he's going in or wants to go in, nor with his unorthodox methods, but unlike democrats (which I'm not), I don't mind admitting the above. And that's the problem with many democrats. They refuse to even entertain the possibility that Trump loves America and has good intentions. And that's just close minded and wrong. So... LET THEM LEAVE. See? Again and again we arrive at the same place. Screw the democrats and their progressive anti-Trump bs. Let them start their own country. Easier.) (Yes, I know, by now one might be thinking, "well where the hell are YOU going to live mr. ambassador?" Honestly I'd probably go Big Blue. I may not like democrats, especially now. But I do tend to just feel more comfortable in as liberal of an environment as possible. My motto, "if it's not hurting anyone, let us do it." And that goes both ways. Which also makes me align with the republicans a lot. Because in some ways republicans are very "let us do what we have the rights to do". And that's the problem with the country right now as it stands. We just have two very different groups of people who want very different things. So if red staters want guns in every room of every house and now in every classroom of every school, heck, let them have it. In that aspect, I may occasionally be more of a libertarian. Who knows? Maybe we end up with three or four countries. A little Europe. It could be very cool.) Of course there will be some discomfort in the process at the beginning. There always is. As many people will want to move. We have to remember that the red and blue demographics are symbolic. Most states are more purplish... But generalities do exist. Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina etc. aren't about to go blue anytime soon. And why should they? Truth be told, they shouldn't be forced to. Not when we have a simple solution right in front of us. Imagine a world where all the bickering and arguing and right versus wrong is just gone. No more "f*ck trump" signs and social media posts. They're gone. All that is over. For lack of a better way of putting it, we have our paradise and they have their's. And if you suddenly wake up one day and you realize that you don't like the country you live in, you can always apply for a visa to move to the other country. Heck it's just one state over in some cases. And we're still in "the United States". Sort of. And that's really what it comes down to: We'll still be united in many many ways. We'll share the military. We'll share the same currency. We'll share the same financial markets. But socially and politically and perhaps even fiscally we'll just be very different nations. And THAT would be a very good thing for everyone. We'll be less stressed. We'll be happier. We'll be healthier. And best of all we can finally make our own laws and stop this constant see-sawing with the laws every 4 to 8 years. It's maddening for all of us, no? Instead we let it go. We stop the madness. We accept that we are sincerely two very different groups of people at this point. So the question I pose to you on this eve of Independence Day, is not whether you agree with this or not. I've already made up my mind. We either head there and start implementing it now, or we continue to tear ourselves to pieces on a daily basis and keep feeling angry hostile upset sad and stressed. I know which I've chosen. No sense in trying to talk me out of it. And that's the point of this post. Those days are gone. It's a dumb game anyway. And a complete waste of time. My question is this: How do we start the process? How does it work? Where do we start? How did the South start? Where did they go wrong? How can we avoid the same fate? What's the strategy? Are there any legal grounds for states to do this? Or has the federal government gotten so damn big and bloated and fascist that it's made it impossible? (See? I told you I'm hard to peg down... But see, I'd rather try to respectfully convince my Blue State Nation citizens of the importance of smaller government than argue with red staters over gun control or immigration or social welfare programs or universal healthcare or abortion. There are just some issues that neither group is ever going to budge on. But there are SOME that we'll both be able to massage a little bit to make most people in each of our two countries happy. And that's really what it comes down to.) It's time to vote for happiness and health my friends. It's past time. Let's just accept our differences, stop the arguing and create two independent nations that are united on many or at least several fronts. And don't worry... We'll both still have Twitter and Facebook and Insta and Skype and Facetime. So we won't even miss each other. But we sure won't be bickering all the time anymore. Paradise I tell you. Absolute paradise is ours for the taking. All we have to do is take that first step.

0 notes