Lessons posted:Petrol posted:I gather the point is to challenge the assumption that the formal measures to normalize homosexuality in the US are indicative of 'progress' in the liberal sense, by showing how a new kind of patriotic homo is being constructed and put into the service of imperialism. Which seems an obvious point but one that bears articulating. Whether Puar does it well, I don't know, because I haven't read the book, but homonationalism has a nice ring to it I guess.
Puar isn't just talking about that, she hitches it to this idea that queer sexualities in non-Western cultures are distinct sexual orientations from being gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. In other words, Ahmadinejad is right that there are no gay people in Iran, because according to Puar any sort of indigenous "gay" sexuality in Iran is distinct from contemporary Western gay sexuality. This is weird pomo crap IMO, also the whole assemblages crap definitely isn't helping.
One WDDP person actually knows the person who coined the term "homonationalism", and in that context it was more or less what you're describing, and she said he was really mad that Puar, Butler etc. latched onto it and turned it into Butlerian Jihad crap when it was originally a primarily political critique of mainstreaming, pinkwashing and the deployment of LGBT sexuality in the service of empire.
that sounds exactly like the thesis of joseph massad's book Desiring Arabs. i was interested in it a few years ago but havent found a thorough critique of it, this is the better one i came across http://ibishblog.com/2010/02/04/joseph_massad_homophobia_gay_rights_and_categories_modernity/
there was another really long-winded critique from a marxist perspective iirc but i lost the link - i thought it was clever because it argued that massad was doing exactly the opposite of what edward said wanted, despite him claiming to be said's Greatest Disciple or w/e
Lessons posted:Petrol posted:I gather the point is to challenge the assumption that the formal measures to normalize homosexuality in the US are indicative of 'progress' in the liberal sense, by showing how a new kind of patriotic homo is being constructed and put into the service of imperialism. Which seems an obvious point but one that bears articulating. Whether Puar does it well, I don't know, because I haven't read the book, but homonationalism has a nice ring to it I guess.
Puar isn't just talking about that, she hitches it to this idea that queer sexualities in non-Western cultures are distinct sexual orientations from being gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. In other words, Ahmadinejad is right that there are no gay people in Iran, because according to Puar any sort of indigenous "gay" sexuality in Iran is distinct from contemporary Western gay sexuality. This is weird pomo crap IMO, also the whole assemblages crap definitely isn't helping.
One WDDP person actually knows the person who coined the term "homonationalism", and in that context it was more or less what you're describing, and she said he was really mad that Puar, Butler etc. latched onto it and turned it into Butlerian Jihad crap when it was originally a primarily political critique of mainstreaming, pinkwashing and the deployment of LGBT sexuality in the service of empire.
Hrmmm. I ended up reading this blog post which makes much the same criticism. It's a shame because I quite like dumb pomo crap when it's deployed properly and not just as a cover for a lack of data/argument/whatever. Like, I really like Butler. Actually, I keep saying that based pretty much on Gender Trouble, I haven't read much else of hers. Anyway, there's probably a point to be made about the gay Iranian identity being different from the gay American identity. But if it's worth making, it's probably not for a western academic to make.
getfiscal posted:one thing the book made me think of more was the whole controversy over labour politics in the US. the main argument made by many leftists in the US is that basically there is no rank-and-file labour party. but if you look at contributions to the democrats, they don't just come from industry or random supporters or whatever. a large share of the money comes from mid-level managers and staff at institutions that consider themselves part of the progressive movement. like not just lawyers and union officials, but people working in university administration and such. if you look at top contributors by organization they are things like the UC system and such. most of these people would see themselves as liberals and are sincere about wanting to defeat the republicans. i guess people in the US would have to think then whether a worker's party is viable that doesn't root itself in this petty-bourgeois layer. there may be other reasons to create a more rank-and-file movement but i think it's an important issue.
in canada we already have a labour party and it's dominated by the same sorts of people. the last ontario NDP platform had almost nothing in it for the working class in itself and no real anti-poverty program. they run their campaigns the same way that the democrats do and even invite obama staffers to give talks at every opportunity. it's a very defensive politics of just trying to salvage parts of the welfare state from assault. but i'm not sure splitting the movement would actually achieve anything in our system. i mean quebec solidaie was explicitly a regroupment to avoid the neoliberalism of the PQ, but if you look at their candidate list it included a lot of social workers and union leaders but not really many viable worker candidates. and it's because the sort of petty-bourgeois NGO/public/union etc sort of layers have enormous connections and some free cash and time to be able to form a labour aristocracy within the movements.
although i don't think this makes these labour parties / labour aristocracies etc useless, i just mean that it seems almost impossible to challenge their hegemony within the working class movement in the normal day-to-day.
at least in utah there is no party that says anything about immigrants, no party that says anything about right-to-work legislation or raising the minimum wage or changing the way healthcare is provided. the democrats ask the governor for an expansion to medicaid and he declines and they go back to their constituents and shrug. so there isn't even a mild social-democratic party at the local level in this state. it's 100% Business Leaders and Military Veterans and bored rich people who want to run for office. i think that opens up possibilities for something different, like a party that says 'we care about workers and immigrants and don't really support business.' I think that should be tried at least. it's such an outlandish, ridiculous idea in the current political landscape that I wonder what would happen if a party were to take those ideas up. probably not much but it says something about the state of things that those ideas are just lying around for anyone to pick up.
Lessons posted:Petrol posted:I gather the point is to challenge the assumption that the formal measures to normalize homosexuality in the US are indicative of 'progress' in the liberal sense, by showing how a new kind of patriotic homo is being constructed and put into the service of imperialism. Which seems an obvious point but one that bears articulating. Whether Puar does it well, I don't know, because I haven't read the book, but homonationalism has a nice ring to it I guess.
Puar isn't just talking about that, she hitches it to this idea that queer sexualities in non-Western cultures are distinct sexual orientations from being gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. In other words, Ahmadinejad is right that there are no gay people in Iran, because according to Puar any sort of indigenous "gay" sexuality in Iran is distinct from contemporary Western gay sexuality. This is weird pomo crap IMO, also the whole assemblages crap definitely isn't helping.
One WDDP person actually knows the person who coined the term "homonationalism", and in that context it was more or less what you're describing, and she said he was really mad that Puar, Butler etc. latched onto it and turned it into Butlerian Jihad crap when it was originally a primarily political critique of mainstreaming, pinkwashing and the deployment of LGBT sexuality in the service of empire.
In other words that person was mad that Puar and Butler took a limited, liberal analysis and made it revolutionary and comprehensive. Got it.
Petrol posted:Lessons posted:Petrol posted:I gather the point is to challenge the assumption that the formal measures to normalize homosexuality in the US are indicative of 'progress' in the liberal sense, by showing how a new kind of patriotic homo is being constructed and put into the service of imperialism. Which seems an obvious point but one that bears articulating. Whether Puar does it well, I don't know, because I haven't read the book, but homonationalism has a nice ring to it I guess.
Puar isn't just talking about that, she hitches it to this idea that queer sexualities in non-Western cultures are distinct sexual orientations from being gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. In other words, Ahmadinejad is right that there are no gay people in Iran, because according to Puar any sort of indigenous "gay" sexuality in Iran is distinct from contemporary Western gay sexuality. This is weird pomo crap IMO, also the whole assemblages crap definitely isn't helping.
One WDDP person actually knows the person who coined the term "homonationalism", and in that context it was more or less what you're describing, and she said he was really mad that Puar, Butler etc. latched onto it and turned it into Butlerian Jihad crap when it was originally a primarily political critique of mainstreaming, pinkwashing and the deployment of LGBT sexuality in the service of empire.Hrmmm. I ended up reading this blog post which makes much the same criticism. It's a shame because I quite like dumb pomo crap when it's deployed properly and not just as a cover for a lack of data/argument/whatever. Like, I really like Butler. Actually, I keep saying that based pretty much on Gender Trouble, I haven't read much else of hers. Anyway, there's probably a point to be made about the gay Iranian identity being different from the gay American identity. But if it's worth making, it's probably not for a western academic to make.
But it has already been made. Iranians already believe homosexuality is a western identity which is being imported through imperialism (as do Russians and most of the third world). However, as far as I can tell this point is simply unspeakable in the 1st world, even MLM parties or genuine anti-imperialist parties believe 20th century socialism was wrong on the issue of homosexuality and Russia/Iran/Syria/North Korea etc. are mistaken. This is clearly a book for first worlders by first worlders, and as first worlders we too need things to be put in our own academic 'truth values' to take them seriously .
The rest is like, you want proof? read the book. an academic conference is always just a summary of findings from research. unless by proof the author means empirical data, which is a fully reactionary way to view science even if you hate post-modernism. if you think that puar is condemning activism: 1. who cares, read the book and evaluate it through immanent critique 2. she probably is because her position is that queerness itself is contingent on racism and imperialism, therefore the rest of the post talking about recovering radical queerness and not blaming the conservative elites for the whole movement is missing the whole point 3. read the book
Lessons posted:The fact that actual homophobic bigots like the BHPN seize on Puar to say homophobic stuff, (even though Puar isn't actually homophobic herself), should tell you all you need to know about its political value.
http://gawker.com/women-making-70-feminist-shirts-in-factory-paid-under-1653799400?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
defend the 1st world. this is beyond reproach.
roseweird posted:there is a plain reality here where western liberals aggressively use the image of oppressed gays and women to justify imperialist wars to themselves and their friends, and where colonized peoples defensively reject that image, even though the homosexuals and women themselves have hardly anything to do with the actual carrying out of the wars, but are primarily manipulated as figureheads, bought off with minor cultural privileges, and themselves politically contained and neutralized by the threat of western cultural conservatives. that's the way things work out, and we can talk about it, but i don't see why it should affect our ability to conceptualize sexuality itself, without devolving into either "homosexuality is natural and inconsequential, freud said so" or "homosexuality is a crime against god and nature and was invented by the cia"
upvote & emptyquote
we DO NOT talk about gender. don't even try
my theory on Solaris is that "solaristics" is a metaphor for experimental psychology. Both disciplines where innumerable empirical observations have lead to zero understanding of how the object (giant sea brain being/ human brain) actually works
- tony soprano on gender
Gibbonstrength posted:on the plane I read The Invincible and Solaris both by lem and both extremely sick, and im reading Molotov Remembers and Age of Capital by hobsbawm and also a book about unrealscript lol.
my theory on Solaris is that "solaristics" is a metaphor for experimental psychology. Both disciplines where innumerable empirical observations have lead to zero understanding of how the object (giant sea brain being/ human brain) actually works
Lem owns. Memoirs Found In A Bathtub is one of my favourite novels and anyone who has been enjoying the excellent conspiracy threads would probably get a kick out of it.
I think you're being too narrow with solaristics. imho Lem's body of work insists on the limitations of all science in general and how it is inherently valueless when it doesn't actively contribute to the genuine betterment of human beings. it's a big part of what makes lem so great, he exposes the bankruptcy of technofetishist trash. also he trolled the hell out of philip k dick and the SFWA just by existing, which is Most Excellent.